Back
2016 Supreme(HP) 1098
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mansoor Ahmad Mir and Sandeep Sharma, JJ.
Sant Ram & another - Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & others – Respondents
CWP No. 662 of 2014
Decided On : 13-07-2016
For the Petitioners: Mr. Virender Thakur.
For the Respondents: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Mr. Anup Rattan, Mr. Kush Sharma, Mr. G.D. Verma, Mr. B.C. Verma, Mr. Abhilasha Kaundal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that entitlement to benefits under a Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme is determined by the family status at the time of land acquisition, and abuse of the legal process can lead to dismissal of a petition seeking additional benefits.
Headnote:
Rehabilitation and Resettlement - Land Acquisition - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - [Annexure P-1] - [Section 4 of the Act] - [Summary: The court dismissed the petition seeking implementation of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme for the oustees of the JAYPEE Himachal Cement Project, as the petitioners, being part of a joint family, had already received compensation and benefits under the scheme. The court found that the petitioners were not entitled to additional benefits as they did not qualify as an independent family under the scheme.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought implementation of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme for the oustees of the JAYPEE Himachal Cement Project, claiming that despite the acquisition of their land and houses, they had not received any benefits under the scheme. They also argued that they were entitled to resettlement under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners, being part of a joint family, had already received compensation and benefits under the scheme and were not entitled to additional benefits as an independent family. The court dismissed the petition, stating that it was an abuse of the legal process.
Issues: The issues revolved around the entitlement of the petitioners to benefits under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners, not being an independent family at the time of land acquisition, were not entitled to additional benefits under the scheme. The court also found that the petition was an abuse of the legal process.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and disposed of any pending applications.
Sandeep Sharma, J.
By way of present petition the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-
“(i) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to implement the scheme of Rehabilitation and Resettlement of the Oustees of the JAYPEE Himachal Cement Project (Annexure P-1) in favour of the petitioners immediately.
(ii) That the respondents may very kindly be directed not to force the petitioners to vacate their houses till the implementation of the Scheme
(iii) That the respondents may further be directed not to use any undue or unlawful force against the petitioners for vacating their houses till the implementation of the Scheme (Annexure P-1).
(iv) That the respondents may kindly be burdened with costs.
(v) That the entire record of the case may kindly be summoned.
Or
Such other orders which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.”
2. Briefly stated facts as emerged from the record are that respondent No.4, Jaypee Himachal Cement Project (for short ’JHCP’) solely with a view to establish its cement plant at village Baga, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, acquired huge chunk of land belonging to private land owners as well as the Government in the year, 2005. The land acquisition proceedings were started in the year, 2005 and thereafter Land Acquisition Collector, Arki passed award with respect to acquired land on 10.1.2008 vide Award No.1/2008 and in compliance thereof, amount of compensation was deposited by the aforesaid ‘JHCP’ with the Land Acquisition Collector, Arki for disbursement to the interest holders.
3. Record further reveals that apart from the other villages, land of three villages i.e Baga, Samtyari, and Sehnali were also acquired for the purpose of mining etc. by the aforesaid ‘JHCP’ for the establishment/construction of cement plant. Petitioners in their petition have averred that since their considerable land and houses were acquired for the mining purposes by the aforesaid ‘JHCP’ in village Samtyari, they were entitled to compensation as well as resettlement in terms of Scheme for the Rehabilitation and Resettlement of the Oustees (for short “Scheme”) of the ‘JHCP’, formulated by the Respondent-State at the time of acquisition of the land of the villagers. Petitioners further averred that despite there being elapse of more than seven years after the acquisition of land and establishment of cement plant, respondents have not granted any benefit to them in terms of the aforesaid Scheme. It is also averred that respondent-State had framed the aforesaid Scheme and as such, scheme being mandatory in nature was required to be given effect by the respondents but despite several requests, no steps whatsoever, have been taken by the respondents to re-settle and rehabilitate the oustees and aggrieved families, whose land and houses were acquired for the construction of the “JHCP”. Petitioners have also placed on record the copy of scheme (Annexure P-1).
4. The petitioners in paragraph 5 of the petition have stated that under the scheme a grant of Rs.11,00,000/- was to be granted to the oustees or to the aggrieved families but till date no amount, as referred above, has been granted to the petitioners despite several requests. It is also averred that they have been continuously visiting the office of respondents No.3 and 4 for the grant of benefit to them in terms of the Relief & Rehabilitation Policy but no action is being taken by them. Petitioners with a view to substantiate their claim that their houses and properties stand acquired by the respondents for the construction of “JHCP” have also placed on record copies of jamabandi (Annexure P-2), Pariwar Register (Annexure P-3) and certificate issued by the Cooperative Society of village Kandhar (Annexure P-4). Petitioners have also stated in their petition that bare perusal of Annexures P-3 and P-4 demonstrate that families o
