Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, SATYEN VAIDYA, JJ.
Mast Ram and others – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. and others - Respondents
CWP No. 5219 of 2022
Decided on : 06-07-2023
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4, 11, A, 18, 3(a), 28A - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24 (1) (a), (2) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Acquired land - Non-evaluation of certain structures and trees - Compensation - Respondents may be directed to issue fresh notification to acquire structures/houses of petitioners as well as trees standing on their land and pass a fresh award under new Act – Petitioners themselves had been instrumental in not allowing evaluation of houses/structures and trees and hence, cannot have any bonafide claim for compensation under 2013 Act. (Para 27)
Finding of the Court :
Only inference that can be drawn is that since petitioners themselves had been instrumental in not allowing evaluation of houses/structures and trees and hence, cannot have any bonafide claim for compensation under 2013 Act - Petitioners No. 4, 11, 13 and 15 had preferred application under Section 28A of 1894 Act - Disclosure of such facts has come by way of documents annexed by Ultratech with its reply - Petitioners did not disclose such facts - That being so, such of petitioners, who had earlier sought remedies under 1894 Act against award are otherwise not entitled to invoke jurisdiction of Court by way of filing of petition - It is held that they had remedy under Section 18 of 1894 Act - There is no hesitation to say that award passed by Collector is an innocuous exercise, which otherwise will have no legal consequence save and except amounting to an acknowledgement on behalf of Ultratech to pay amount of compensation to petitioners for their houses/ structures and trees which had remained without evaluation - Petitioners are not entitled to reliefs as prayed in petition.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, J.
The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners for the grant of following substantive reliefs:
(ii) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to issue fresh notification to acquire the structures/houses of the petitioners as well as the trees standing on their land and pass a fresh award under the new Act i.e. the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.”
2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that a large chunk of land was acquired by respondent No.1 through respondent No.3 (for short, ‘the Collector’) for establishment of cement manufacturing plant and mining area for M/s Jaiprakash Associates Limited (for short, ‘JAL’) in Villages Baga, Bhalag, Sehnali and Samtyari of Mangal Panchayat in Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P. under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘1894 Act’). The notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act was published in official gazette on 16.8.2005. The Collector offered the market price of acquired land vide award dated 10.01.2008.
3. Though the award was passed by the Collector on 10.01.2008, however, on account of non-evaluation of certain structures and trees, the compensation for such structures and trees was not ascertained. Petitioners claimed themselves to be the owners of some of such structures and trees.
4. In 2017, the cement plant alongwith entire mining area acquired for ‘JAL’ was taken over by the 4th respondent (for short, ‘the Ultratech’). The Ultratech approached this Court by way of CWP No. 3073 of 2021 with the allegations that the local residents of the area had been causing hindrance in evaluation of houses/structures as well as standing trees on the acquired land. On 15.09.2021, the following order came to be passed by this Court:
5. The petition was finally disposed of by this Court on 24.11.2021 as under:
(a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus directing respondents No.1 to 3 to immediately to take all effective steps to get the houses, structures and trees evaluated which stand acquired by the petitioner company in terms of Award No.1/2008 dated 10.1.2008 which otherwise were not allowed to be evaluated, from the appropriate authorities-departments so that the amount of compensation assessed is deposited and the vacant and peaceful physical possession of the area could be handed over to the petitioner company in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the respondent-State.”
2. This Court vide order dated 15.9.2021 directed the State Government to evaluate the houses and structures etc. of the respondents for which no obstruction or hindrance whatsoever shall be caused by the respondents as per the assurance given in the open Court on the said date. It is not in dispute that the houses and structures as well as the standing trees have now been evaluated.
3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant petition has been rendered infructuous. However, in order to ensure that there is no further multiplicity of litigation, we direct the Land Acquisition Collector to immediately take consequential action in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.”
6. Thus, the evaluation of houses, structures and standing trees was conducted and the Collector passed the impugned supplementary award, Annexure P-2, on 02.05.2022.
7. The grievance of the petitioners against the sup
Section 11 A of 1894 Act read as period within which an award shall be made.
The revised award passed after the expiry of two years from the date of Declaration was deemed to be a fresh award, and the acquisition proceedings stood lapsed under Section 11-A of Act, 1894. The c....
The final and conclusive nature of the award made under the Act of 1894 as regards the compensation to be paid, and the procedure for seeking reference for determination by the Court as provided in t....
The court clarified that under the Land Acquisition Act, only one award is envisaged, and no Supplementary Award is contemplated. It emphasized that any grievance regarding non-determination of compe....
(1) Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Section 11A of 1894 Act and Section 25 of 2013 Act prescribe two different periods of limitation with adverse consequences, as on failure to make award acqu....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the acquisition proceedings lapsed as no award was made within 2 years of the declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act, and the State was d....
Compensation in land acquisition must adhere to statutory requirements, including formal awards under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, or provisions of the updated Act of 2013 apply.
No lapse of proceedings under the Act of 1894 occurs if compensation has been paid and possession of the acquired land has been assumed, even if no award has been made.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
