IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Writ Petition No. 1334 of 2007. Reserved on: 11.9.2008. Decided on: 24.9.2008. __________________________________________________ Ritesh Chauhan and another. .… Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others .… Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners : Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy.A.G. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this writ petition are that the land of the petitioners comprised in Khasra Nos. 358/1 and 365/1 situate in Up-Mohal Kiarvi, Mohal Chourni, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla was utilised by the State for the construction of road called ‘Guma-Jashla via Kiarvi road’. It is not disputed by the State that the land of the petitioners was utilised for construction of aforesaid road. The principal stand of the State is that the petitioners had consented for the construction of the road and at this belated stage, they are estopped from claiming compensation. Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Advocate has strenuously argued that the petitioners cannot be deprived of their property save in 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 accordance with law. He has referred to Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. He also contended that the petitioners or their predecessor in interest have never given consent for the construction of the road in question. Learned Additional Advocate General has argued that since the petitioners had consented for construction of the road, they are not entitled to any compensation. I have heard the parties and perused the record. It is evident from the reply filed by the respondents that the land of the petitioners had been utilised for the construction of ‘Guma-Jashla Road’. The land of the petitioners was required to be acquired as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The State has failed to place on record that the necessary notifications under the Act were ever issued for acquiring the land of the petitioners for the construction of the road. The petitioners cannot be deprived of their property save in accordance with law. The only ground assigned for non-payment of compensation is that the petitioners had consented for the construction of road to avail the connectivity for transportation of their agricultural produce. The respondents have not placed even an iota of evidence on record before which authority/officer the petitioners had given the consent for the construction of the road. In the absence of any documentary evidence, it cannot be presumed at any given time, the petitioners had given any oral consent to give the land for the construction of the road. The property has been given the status of human rights. No citizen can be deprived of his property without following the mandate of law. Consequently, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are 3 directed to initiate the process of acquiring the land of the petitioners in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The necessary notifications shall be issued by the respondent-State within a period of six months and the entire process of acquiring the land of the petitioners utilised for the construction of Guma-Jashla Road will be completed within the period of one year. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. September 24, 2008. (cr)