Supreme Court Dismisses Himachal Pradesh Govt's Appeal Against HC Decision Quashing Illegal Land Acquisition

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra today (August 12) was hearing a petition where the government had allegedly acquired the land for the construction of Rakkad to Basoli Road without resorting to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. While the State claims that it had obtained oral consent of land owners to utilise it for construction, there is no evidence to substantiate the same.

Justice Datta at the outset asked the advocate for the appellant(State): “Your subject has a piece of land and you require it for the public purpose, you come and say he has donated voluntarily, so the question of acquisition does not arise…forget about delay or offence…there has to be some document which proves this…"

Advocate said: “There is a 1989 document which is not traceable right now but I can bring it on record…"

Justice Datta said: “If you have that document, you go to the high court and say please exercise your Order 47, Rule 1 powers…”

The advocate referred to the case of Syed Maqbool Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh(2011), and argued that the land was donated voluntarily. He cited paragraph where the court stated: “High Courts should also be cautious in entertaining writ petitions filed decades after the dispossession, seeking directions for acquisition and payment of compensation. It is not uncommon for villagers to offer/donate some part of their lands voluntarily for a public purpose which would benefit them or the community - as for example, construction of an access road to the village or their property, or construction of a village tank or a bund to prevent flooding/erosion. When they offer their land for such public purpose, the land would be of little or negligible value. But decades later, when land values increase, either on account of passage of time or on account of developments or improvements carried out by the State, the land holders come up with belated claims alleging that their lands were taken without acquisition and without their consent. When such claims are made after several decades, the State would be at a disadvantage to contest the claim, as it may not have the records to show in what circumstances the lands were given/donated and whether the land was given voluntarily.”

However, Justice Datta clarified that this reasoning has to be applied in terms of Section 57 of the Evidence Act, 1872 in which the court could take a judicial notice. Simply stating the villagers donated land is not enough under Section 57.

When Justice Mishra asked for the document through which the land was donated, the advocate replied: “That is also stated that we don't have the documents but there is a 1989 order…”

However, the court did not agree with the arguments and dismissed the petition.

A single judge of the High Court through an order had directed that the possession of the land be given to the respondents.

On October 6, 2023, the division bench of the high court held: “The present case is an example of forcible dispossession of a person from his private property without following process of law. The same is violative of his human rights as well as his constitutional rights under Article 300A of the Constitution. Such act on the part of State, which is custodian and protector of rights, life and property of its citizens, definitely shocks the judicial conscience of the court. There is no period of limitation prescribed for the courts to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice. The State cannot shield itself behind the ground of delay and latches and also there cannot be a limitation to do justice.”

The court had directed the State to acquire the in accordance with law within six months or hand over the possession to the respondent as directed by the single judge.

Case details: State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors v. Balbir Singh & Anr, Diary No. 33473-2024,