STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. UMED RAM SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) From one angle in this case there is much ado about nothing, from another point of view there is a great deal than that meets the eye. It is better, however, to proceed to deal with the matter as far as eye can see without telescope but also without blinkers. The facts are few - the issues in controversy are fewer still - the directions given by the High Court in this case which are under challenge are brief but their consequences are of some relevance and importance on the. question of ambit of judicial power over administrative inaction. To the facts first, therefore, in imitation of the inimitable style of Lord Denning. This petition for special leave to appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution is directed against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dated 20th August, 1984. Respondents 1 to 15 herein, who claimed to be poor and mostly Harijans and are residents of villages Bhainkhal, Baladi and Bhukho, Tehsil and district Simla in Himachal Pradesh, addressed a letter on or about 4th June, 1984 to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the said High Court, complaining, inter alia, that (i) in 1972, the State Government had sanctioned the construction of Road known as Channa Haiti-Bhukho Road, (ii) by about August, 1980 half the portion of the road i.e. about 3 Kms. had been constructed and that when the road had reached the village Gharog, the residents of the village obstructed further construction, (iii) the Government initiated compulsory acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands belonging to the villagers of Gharog village and the same were finally acquired in 1982. The villagers of Gharog who were disinterested in further construction of the road in collusion with the authorities got the construction stopped at that stage.

(2.) It was alleged that after the construction had been made up to the village Gharog, 200/250 metre portion of the road had to be constructed through a privately owned piece of barren land belonging to two families. As the road had reached up to their village, they objected to further construction of the road and also obtained 'stay orders' from the Court. The compulsory acquisition proceedings had been taken by the Government in 1980 and the land was acquired by it in 1982.

(3.) But the grievances of the said respondents were that, in collusion with the authorities, the said two families of village Gharog along with other residents of the village who were no longer interested in the further construction of the road, got the construction work stopped. Work had been thereafter resumed, it was further alleged, once or twice in a half-hearted manner but the residents of the aforesaid village reached the place of work in protest and got the work stopped again. Though the land was government land, the construction had been, according to the said respondents, completely abandoned.