After a span of seven years since the compensation award was issued for land acquisition in Mangu village near Solang, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has now directed that the award be referred to the statutory authority for reassessment of the compensation.
The Court highlighted that the requirement of providing notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which necessitates informing the interested parties about the passing of the award, was not fulfilled in the case of the Petitioner.
Brief Facts:
In March 2009, the respondents initiated a process to acquire land owned by the petitioner and others in several villages for the use of respondent No.3. The acquisition process faced opposition, and a writ petition was filed before the court. The petition was dismissed, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which was still pending at the time of filing the present petition. On August 16, 2017, the petitioner learned from other landowners that respondent No.2 had announced an Award in the acquisition proceedings. The Award was passed in the absence of the petitioner and other interested parties who believed that no Award would be announced while the matter was pending before the Supreme Court. Upon gaining this knowledge, the petitioner immediately approached the office of respondent No.2, where he was informed that Award No.1/2016 regarding the land acquisition had been announced on September 15, 2016.
The grievance of the petitioner was that the application praying for forwarding of the Reference to the learned District Judge, Solan for determination of compensation has been rejected by respondent No.2 in terms of order dated 23.11.2017.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner's Senior Counsel contended that the order dated 23.11.2017 passed by respondent No.2 violates the petitioner's statutory right to seek adequate compensation for the acquisition of his land. The Senior Counsel also argued that the authority did not provide the petitioner with an opportunity to present his case or provide evidence supporting his application. Additionally, he argued that the findings in the order are contradictory to the record since the petitioner was never served notice under Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act read with Section 37(2) of the Act.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Counsel for the respondent argued that in terms of the record available, the petitioner was duly served the statutory notice and therefore as the petitioner did not file the Reference Petition in terms of Section 64 of the 2013 Act, there was no infirmity with the order passed by respondent No.2, dismissing the application of the petitioner
Observations of the Court:
The bench consisting of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Ajay Mohan Goel observed that despite Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (read with Section 18 of the LA Act), which extends the time period for filing a Reference petition by one year, the petitioner's reference petition was rejected.
The Court further noted that the alleged notice under Section 12 of the LA Act had an endorsement stating "Sir, refused to accept," signed by someone named Parmanand, with the word "Sathi" written below the signature. However, the endorsement did not provide any details regarding who refused to accept the notice, the identity of "Parmanand," or the significance of "Sathi."
The decision of the Court:
In light of these discrepancies, the Himachal Pradesh High Court directed the Land Acquisition Collector to submit the petitioner's application and Reference to the Statutory Authority for a fair assessment and decision on the merits of the case.
Case Title: Prem Lal Vs State of H.P. & others
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Ajay Mohan Goel
Case no: CWP No.2300 of 2018
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. P.S. Govardhan
Advocate for the Respondent: - Mr. Anup Rattan
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
