Vivek Singh Thakur JUDGMENT
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
1. Aggrieved by non payment of compensation for utilization of his land comprised in Khasra No. 1, 65, 66, 67 and 68, Khata-Khatauni No. 21 and 30 situated at Chak Basmol, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, H.P., for construction of link road from village Kiimah to Chailla-Mahori in the year 2007-2008, petitioner has preferred present petition with prayer for direction to respondents to pay compensation to petitioner for loss of his aforesaid agriculture land.
2. Petitioner has placed on record photographs of construction Annexure P-1, and notices dated 28.03.2007 and 17.02.2009 Annexure P-2 & Annexure P-3 served upon respondents for payment of compensation by acquiring of his land utilized for construction of road. Petitioner has also placed on record representation dated 17.03.2008 submitted to the Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Theog Division Shimla for protection of his house from damage caused on account of construction of road in question.
3. Respondent No. 1 in his reply has stated that petitioner did not object construction of road and Jeep-able road constructed by Gram Panchayat was already there and the respondents-State has constructed road only on old road on large public demand raised through number of representation of the inhabitants of area for construction of road in question with assurance to provide land, free of cost, for construction of road. It is further claimed that the road has been constructed by spending public exchequer amounting to Rs. 1.54 Crore under PMGSY/WORLD Bank Scheme for connecting villages with road. It is also submitted in case of non availability of free of cost land the road was not to be constructed as it was pre-condition of scheme to provide land without cost and at the time of construction of road petitioner had agreed and extended full cooperation to the department and the department has also constructed 50 mtrs. long breast wall by spending 4.00 Lacs to protect house and agriculture land of petitioner from any damage. Lastly, it has been stated that after lapse of 2 years, petitioner is not entitled to raise demand of compensation.
4. Respondent No. 1 has also placed on record detailed project report of road under PMGSY as Annexure P-1 and affidavits of villagers giving consent for utilization of their land free of cost for construction of road.
5. Respondents No. 2 and 3 have filed separate reply to the petition and have stated that there role was confined only to the extent that petitioner had applied for demarcation of land in dispute and in the demarcation was given to the best satisfaction of the present petitioner.
6. In rejoinder, petitioner has stated that petitioner had stopped Gram Panchayat from carrying on any construction with respect to the road in question and the Gram Panchayat did not ventured to interfere on the land of petitioner thereafter. Petitioner has stated that persons who were interested in construction of road had given their personal affidavits and as petitioner had objected, he had never given his consent for construction of road in issue and no affidavit or consent letter was ever given by petitioner to respondents and respondents had constructed road over his property without his consent.
7. On behalf of petitioner it is submitted that petitioner was agitating matter since beginning which is evident from notices Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-3 and therefore, there was no delay on the part of petitioner in raising demand for compensation.
8. Petitioner has relied upon judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case tilted as K.B. Ramachandra Raje Urs versus State of Karnataka and others reported in MANU/SC/1457/2015 : 2016(3) Supreme Court Cases 422 in which it has been held as under:--
"Time and again it has been said that while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the High Court is not bound by any strict rule of limitation. If substantial issues of public importance touching upon the fai........