Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 7533
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Bipin Chander Negi, J
Arjun Singh – Appellant
Versus
Rajindra Kumari and Ors. – Respondent
RFA No.103/2002
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Diwan Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Addl. Advocate General, Ms. Devyani Sharma, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate
Ownership claims post-land vesting in the State do not guarantee compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 30 - Appeal against award dismissing claim for compensation for land acquired under the Nathpa Jharki Power Project - Claim rejected due to land vested in State under HP Abolition of Big Landed Estate and Land Reforms Act, 1953. (Paras 1-9)
(B) Adverse possession - Claim rejected as individuals similarly situated were considered trespassers, not entitled to compensation under the Act. (Paras 6-8)
(C) The principle established from precedents is that once land vests in the State, former ownership claims do not confer rights to compensation. (Paras 5-7)
Facts of the case:
The appellant claimed compensation for land acquired after being recorded in possession despite disputes regarding land ownership due to previous land reforms.
Findings of Court:
The Reference Court’s decision was upheld, indicating no merit in appellant’s claims after land vested in the State.
Issues: The main issue was the ownership dispute's effect on compensation entitlement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that entitlement to compensation is contingent upon lawful ownership per relevant statutes.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of ownership and compensation entitlements. (Para 4) |
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral).
hPresent appeal has been preferred against the gimpugned award dated 06.07.2001, whereby reference ipetition bearing No.206/1995/93 (Sr. No.30 in the cause title of the impugned judgment) preferred under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, seeking apportionment of compensation for lands acquired for the Nathpa Jharki Power Project insofar as the present appellant is concerned, has been dismissed.
2. Notification under Section 4 was published in the HP State Gazette on 01.07.1989. In the books of the
Collector, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.1 to 4 stood recorded, as the owner in possession of theP land in dispute. However, at the time of settlement in 1982-83 qua the land with respect to which compensation is being sought, the present appellant stood recorded in possession, however, without anyo status. The Collector Land Acquisition determined compensation, however, observed that compensation amount could not be paid to the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.1 to 4, since a dispute abouto title of the lands acquired had arisen on account oCf the HP Abolition of Big Landed Estate and Land Reforms Act 1953 and HP Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 . Accordingly, the Collector referred the dispute gunder Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the iadjudication of the District Judge on 13.01.1993.
3. Vide order dated 21.05.2001 numerous reference petitions were clubbed and consolidated together with land Reference Petition No.68-R/4 of 1995/93. Evidence was recorded in the aforesaid reference petition. The evidence so recorded was to be read in all reference petitions. The Reference Court dismissed the claim made by the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.1 to 4 and also of individuals similarly situate, as the present appellant.
As a consequence whereof, the instant appeal has been preferred by the present appellant. P
4. The claim of the appellant is with respect . to land described as Khasra No.9 measuring 0-33-79, Khasra No.10, measuring 0-03-10, Khasra No.12 measuring 0-47- 47, Khasra No.13/2 measuring 0-o14-92 Hec. Situated at Mauza Jhakhari, Pargana Saraha n, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla. In the relevant revenue record appended along with the entry recorded in the possession column is ‘Bila Sift’ qua Khasrao Nos.10 and 12. Insofar as Khasra Nos.9 and 13 Care concerned, the same are shown in the ownership of Rajinder Singh predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.1 to 4. The claim thereto is being made gon the basis of a patta dated 25.04.1969, issued by the ipredecessor-in-interest of the respondents No.1 to 4 in favour of the present appellant.
5. At the very outset, it would be appropriate to refer to judgment reported as 2019 (14) SCC 449, titled Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Vs. Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh (dead) through LRs and Ors., wherein one of the issues considered is the effect of HP Abolition of Big Landed Estate and Land Reforms Act, 1953 with respect to the lands owned and possessed by the predecessor-in-interest of present respondents No.1 to 4. P
6. In the aforesaid judgment after consider . ing the specific provisions of the HP Abolition of Big Landed Estate and Land Reforms Act, 1953 , it has categorically been held that vesting is automatic under thoe Act and it would not depend upon the payment of com pensation. Further it has been held that once the land stands vested in the State, it is not open to the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.1 to 4 on thoe basis of continuation of wrong entries in the revenCue record to claim, right, title or interest much less compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.
7. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, gI see no reason to differ with the view taken by the iReference Court that once the land in question stood vested in the
