Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, SUSHIL KUKREJA
Keshav Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
Both these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lay challenge to the Notification dated 01.04.2015 (Annexure P-1) being ultra vires to the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘Act’) with a further direction to notify the multiplier factor as two in terms of the provisions of the Act with respect to the rural areas of Himachal Pradesh.
2. The factual scenario giving rise to these petitions, in brief, is that on 19.01.2021, the land of the petitioners was utilized for the construction of road and the same was acquired by the respondent department vide its Notification dated 11.10.2018 issued under the provisions of the Act.
3. On 07.01.2022, the department issued Notification under Section 19 of the Act for acquisition of land as well as payment of compensation to the petitioners and other interested persons. Thereafter, the Collector passed the award on 20.06.2024. According to the petitioners, it is then they learnt that the multiplier of one had been given to the petitioners and other similar situated persons. This made the petitio
The Notification restricting the multiplier factor for land compensation to one in rural areas is ultra vires the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, mandating a mini....
The court affirmed that the doctrine of stare decisis applies, and legal principles declared by courts generally have retrospective effect unless explicitly stated otherwise.
The court ruled that in land acquisition, established multiplication factors must be adhered to, as deviating from them unlawfully denies rightful compensation.
The notification setting a multiplier of 1.00 for compensation calculation was struck down, necessitating a new notification to apply a multiplier of 2.00 for recalculating compensation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 was not applicable in the present case, and the land acquisition proceedings should continue under the J&K Land Acquisi....
Delay by landholders in seeking redetermination does not negate their right to statutory interest under the Land Acquisition Act when statutory adjustments have been mandated by the court.
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
