IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.502 of 2009 alongwith CWP Nos.503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 554 and 606 of 2009. Date of Decision: 18.5.2009 CWP No. 502 of 2009 Prem Singh …Petitioner Versus. State of H.P. and others. … Respondents CWP No. 503 of 2009 Surinder Chauhan …Petitioner Versus. State of H.P. and others. … Respondents CWP No. 504 of 2009 Raj Kumar …Petitioner Versus. State of H.P. and others. … Respondents CWP No. 505 of 2009 Rajesh Chauhan …Petitioner Versus. State of H.P. and others. … Respondents CWP No. 506 of 2009 Krishan Chand …Petitioner Versus. State of H.P. and others. … Respondents CWP No. 507 of 2009 Beli Ram …Petitioner Versus. State of H.P. and others. … Respondents CWP No. 508 of 2009 Bhag Mal …Petitioner Versus. State of H.P. and others. … Respondents 2 CWP No. 509 of 2009 Jai Dev …Petitioner Versus. State of H.P. and others. … Respondents CWP No. 510 of 2009 Joginder …Petitioner Versus. State of H.P. and others. … Respondents CWP No. 511 of 2009 Prabhu Dayal …Petitioner Versus. State of H.P. and others. … Respondents CWP No. 512 of 2009 Jai Lal …Petitioner Versus. State of H.P. and others. … Respondents CWP No. 554 of 2009 Roshan Lal …Petitioner Versus. State of H.P. and others. … Respondents CWP No. 606 of 2009 Krishan Lal …Petitioner Versus. State of H.P. and others. … Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the petitioner(s): Mr. B.M.Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K.Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra & Mr. R.M.Bisht, Deputy Advocate Generals. 3 Per Deepak Gupta, J. All the aforesaid writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment since common points of law and fact arise in the same. All the petitioners are owners of land in Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla. According to the petitioners in the year 1998 the respondents 1&2 constructed the Dhalli-Dakahal link road and land of the petitioners has been utilized for construction of the aforesaid road. The petitioners allege that though their land was utilized and their plants damaged, no compensation has been paid to them. The petitioners have prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners. During the course of the arguments it was prayed that the land of the petitioners may be acquired by the State Government. The respondents-State has filed reply(s). It has not been denied that the road in question has been constructed. It is also not denied that the some land of the petitioners has been used in the construction of the road. The stand of the State is that this road was constructed at the instance of the villagers including the petitioners and therefore the petition be rejected. Alongwith the reply the State has attached the affidavits of the petitioners. These affidavits show that the petitioners had stated that they had no objection in the construction of the road provided they were paid compensation for the land and orchard acquired. The petitioners never agreed to transfer the land in favour of the State free of cost. 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. 4 From the reply it is also apparent that in fact at one stage on 16.8.2005 a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued but the same lapsed. This Court has repeatedly held that no person can be deprived of his property except by process of law. In view of the above discussion, all the writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to initiate acquisition proceedings for acquiring the land of the petitioners utilized for the construction of the aforesaid road within a period of four months from today and to ensure that the acquisition proceedings are completed within 2 years thereafter. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. 18th May, 2009 ( V.K.Ahuja ). J. PV