IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.342 of 2007. Date of Decision: 17.9.2009. Shri Partigya Pal and another …Petitioners Versus. State of H.P. and others. … Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the petitioner(s): Mr.Dharamvir Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) By means of this writ petition the petitioners have claimed that the State has utilized their land for construction of Bajthan-Land-Waka Road connected to Mari-Ka-Ghat-Dinger- Kinner-Mathanan road sometimes in the year 1971 when a jeepable road was constructed. In the year 1974 the road was widened and even buses started plying. The stand of the respondents is that the claim of the petitioners is highly belated. Further according to the respondents the road was constructed by the Rural Integrated Department under the Crash Programme in which land owners were required to donate their land free of cost. Thereafter, the road was handed over to HPPWD and was widened. 2 On 13.7.2009 we had directed the State to produce before us a copy of the Crash Programme Scheme. We have gone through the scheme and find that there is nothing in the Scheme to indicate that the land for the roads was to be provided free of cost by the owners. By now the law is well settled that every citizen of this country has a right to hold property and his property cannot be taken by the State except by process of law. It is also a well settled law that no person can be deprived of his property without payment of compensation. This is a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The version of the respondents that the petitioners had donated their land cannot be accepted. No contemporaneous evidence of any nature has been placed on record to support this version of the respondents. Even otherwise we are of the considered view that even if there is no deed transferring the rights of a party to the State government then also there must at least be some writing such as an affidavit or any other written document to indicate that the owner had agreed that the land be taken over and the owner would not claim any compensation for the same. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that the respondents are in illegal possession of the land of the petitioners. We, therefore, direct that the respondents shall issue notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within four months from today and shall complete the entire acquisition proceedings within two years thereafter. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. September 17, 2009 ( Surinder Singh ). J. PV