Key Takeaways
- The Himachal Pradesh High Court directs the state to compensate landowners for unauthorised use of their land in Gohar-Kandha road construction.
- The Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) scheme is used for road construction in rural areas of India.
- The High Court rejected the State’s claim that the land was donated willingly, citing a lack of evidence to support this argument.
Shimla: The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ordered the state to compensate landowners whose land was used without consent for the construction of the Gohar-Kandha Road under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY).
A single bench of Justice Sandeep Sharma recently emphasised in a judgement that the unauthorised use of private land violates property rights under Article 300-A of the Constitution.
The court directed the state to begin acquisition proceedings within four weeks and ensure fair compensation to the petitioners. .
“The Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly allows the same with direction to the respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings within four weeks under the relevant statute vis-à-vis land of the petitioners.
Just and fair compensation should be awarded to the petitioners. Since petitioners have been fighting for their rightful claim for so long, this Court hopes and trusts that the concerned authority will expedite the process, preferably within four months.” verdict said.
The petitioners, represented by Advocate Dikken Kumar Thakur, argued that their land in the Mandi district was used for road construction decades ago without their consent or compensation. They have been fighting for their rightful claim since 2018.
Despite their repeated requests since 2018, authorities had not initiated acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act.
The State, represented by Additional Advocate General Rajan Kahol, claimed the road construction began between 1990 and 1992 and was widened by 2006. They argued the petitioners had impliedly consented by not objecting for over 30 years.
The High Court rejected the State’s claim that the land was donated willingly, citing a lack of evidence to support this argument.
In light of these precedents, the High Court concluded that the petitioners were entitled to compensation. It directed the State to begin acquisition proceedings under the relevant statute and ensure just and fair compensation for the affected landowners.
