CWP 733 of 2005. 16.10.2008 Present: M/S K.D.Sood and Sanjeev Sood, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. AG, for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. Surinder Sharma, counsel for respondent No. 3. The petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ or direction to the respondents directing them to initiate steps for acquisition of the land as described in the writ petition, over which, the petitioner alleges that a road has been constructed to the officers colony starting from Attri Complex to the Sub Divisional Magistrate’s residence without resort to due process of law and to pay a compensation to the petitioner in accordance with law. An alternate prayer is made for issuance of a writ of prohibition, prohibiting and restraining the respondents from using this road. The petitioner filed the present writ petition on the allegations that he is the owner of land comprised in khata khatauni No. 36/101, khasra No. 2023/1651/1257, measuring 504 square meters. The petitioner alleges that a road was constructed in the year 1992 through his land without paying him any compensation or initiating proceedings in accordance with law -2- for acquisition of such land. He has placed on record his representations dated 29.4.1999, 27.12.2003 and 9.11.2004 to which the reply by the respondents was that the road is maintained by the Municipal Committee, Solan. The petitioner expresses his helplessness in getting any justice from the respondents. He pleads that he has been running from pillar to post, but no compensation has been paid to him for his land which measures 504 square meters. The reply filed by the first respondent was extremely vague and evasive and this Court called upon the Deputy Commissioner to file his affidavit stating clearly as to whether there existed a road on the land of the petitioner. Pursuant to these directions, affidavit dated 23.9.2008 by the Deputy Commissioner has been filed which admits that the road exists on the land which fact is substantiated by the report of the revenue agency. These facts are being noticed in view of the objection taken by the respondents that the writ petition involves disputed questions of fact. It is undisputed before me that the road is not built on the land belonging to either of the respondents. The ownership of the land is also not disputed. There is nothing on record -3- to show that any proceedings under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act had been initiated or an attempt made to compensate the petitioner for depriving him of his property. The right to property, though not a fundamental right, is a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. No person can be deprived of his property save in accordance with law which would imply compensating the petitioner in terms of the law in existence which is the Land Acquisition Act. It is undisputed before me that the road abuts and leads to the pooled accommodation which was constructed by the revenue department and the District administration through the Public Works Department. The road is maintained by respondent No. 3, Municipal Committee, Solan. The Committee has put forward a case that they have not constructed the road and only maintain it. In either event, whether it is the State or the Municipal Committee which has constructed the road, the liability to pay compensation cannot be evaded. For this purpose, proceedings in accordance with law require to be initiated. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. A direction is issued to the State that it shall initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition -4- Act for acquisition of the land as aforesaid and shall pay compensation to the petitioner in accordance with law. It will be open to the petitioner to establish use and occupation charges prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that it is respondent No. 3 which is liable to pay the acquisition amount. It will be open to the State to establish this before the Collector in the acquisition proceedings and will not be used as a tool to deny the petitioner of his lawful claim to the compensation. A direction is issued that acquisition proceedings shall be completed not later than eight months from today. This writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending application (s) shall stand disposed of. October 16, 2008 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.