Reportable/non-reportable IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA ON THE 8th DAY OF APRIL 2022 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA CIVIL MISC. PETITION MAIN (ORIGINAL) 301 OF 2021 Between:-

REKESH KUMAR, S/O SHRI PARKASH CHAND, R/O VILLGE MOHIN TEHSIL DEHRA, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.

….PETITIONER (BY SH. ANUP RATTAN, ADVOCATE)

AND LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR-

CUM-SUB DIVISION OFFICE (CIVIL), DEHRA DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.

....RESPONDENT (BY SH. P.K. BHATTI, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL, ADVOCATE)

Reserved on: 1.4.2022 Decided on: 8.4.2022 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

H This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed the following:

O R D E R By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

“i) That the impugned order Annexure P-3 dated 30.7.2018 may kindly be quashed and set aside and proceed further in the case.

ii) That respondent may kindly be directed to make inquires with respect to deceased respondents before Reference Court and submit reference for adjudication on merits in time bound manner”.

2. The grievance of othe petitioner is that the impugned order dated 30.7.2018, passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharmshala in Reference Petitionu No. 64 of 2007 is against the law and as a consequence thereof, a situation has arisen that the petitioner and similarly situated persons have been made to wait for the final outcome of the litigation till indefinite period.

3. Respondent passed an award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ‘Act’) as Award H No.1 of 2007 on 23.7.2007. As regards apportionment of compensation, it was held as under:-

“Apportionment of compensation The holders of interest in the land will be paid amount of compensation according to their share recorded in the latest jamabandi and also in the column of ownership as per statement No.55 prepared understanding order of the Financial Commissioner. In case any dispute regarding title or interest is raised, the entire amount will be deposited in the Govt. Treasury or in the court as the case may be and will be paid as and when the dispute is settled amicably or decided by the order of the court. In consideration of their relative rights and keepinfg in view the principal of equity, the amount of compensation of land under tenancy will be paid in equal share to the tenants and thte owners.”

Subseuquently, some dispute as regards to apportionment appears to have arisen and hence, respondent No.1 made reference to the Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharmshala vide impugned order dated 30.7.2018 returned the reference Petition to respondent No.1 on account of failure of said respondent to H supply the list of legal representative of deceased respondents, despite several opportunities. Noticeably, the reference petition remained pending for almost eleven years before its return.

4. Despite repeated opportunities, respondent has failed to file reply. Since, this Court proposes to dispose of this petition on purely a legal ground, as to legality of the impugned order, the reply on factual side will not otherwise be of much relevance.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records carefully.

6. The Collector under the Act has jurisdiction under Section 11 thereof to pass an award of compensation in respect of following factors :- “(i) the true area of the land;

(ii) uthe compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and (iii) the apportionment of the said compensation Camong all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared g before him”.

7. The Collector, while passing Award No. 1 of 2007 H dated 23.7.2007 apportioned the compensation in the manner, as noticed above. Be that as it may, the subse