District Mandi vs State Of H.P. Through
2022 Latest Caselaw 8887 HP

       IN   THE     HIGH   COURT OF HIMACHAL            PRADESH,




                                                       .
                              SHIMLA





                  ON THE 31st DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022





                              BEFORE
               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL
                CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.1406 of 2019





    Between:

    PREM LAL S/O SH. KESHVA
    NAND, R/O VILLAGE JEORI,
    P.O.   TATTAPANI,    TEHSIL

    KARSOG, DISTT. MANDI, H.P.

    THROUGH HARIOM SON OF
    SHRI PREM LAL GENERAL
    POWER ATTORNEY
    (DIED) THROUGH LRS:­


    a) SH. PRAKASH CHAND S/O
    LATE SH. PREM LAL,
    B) SH. HARI OM S/O LATE SH.
    PREM LAL




    BOTH SONS OF LATE SH.





    PREM LAL, R/O VILLAGE
    JEORI,   P.O.   TATTAPANI,
    TEHSIL     KARSOG     AND





    DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

    c) UMA DEVI D/O LATE SH.
    PREM LAL
    d)SMT. PREMA DEVI W/O
    LATE SH. PREM LAL
    GENERAL      POWER     OF
    ATTORNEY    SH.   PRAKASH
    CHAND AND HARIOM. (a & b)
    ABOVE.

                                                   ....PETITIONERS.




                                      ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2022 20:32:50 :::CIS
                                            2




                                                                    .
    (BY MR. HEM CHAND SHARMA, ADVOCATE)





    AND





    1. STATE OF H.P. THROUGH
    ITS   SECRETARY    POWER
    SHIMLA­2, H.P.
    2.    COLLECTOR      LAND
    ACQUISITION   KOL     DAM,





    BILASPUR, DISTT. BILASPUR,
    H.P.
                     r                                      ....RESPONDENTS.

    (BY MR. SANJEEV SOOD, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)

    Whether approved for reporting?1 No


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

                 JUDGMENT

Though the case is listed with the report of the Registry

that service of proposed respondent No.3 is still awaited, who was

intended to be impleaded by way of an application, i.e. CMP

No.12349 of 2022, filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil

Procedure Code, however, learned Additional Advocate General while

drawing attention of the Court to the prayers made in the Writ

Petition, has submitted that the present Writ Petition being

completely misconceived be accordingly dismissed.

2. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for issuance of a

.

direction to the respondents to pay compensation in respect of the

land and trees acquired for the purpose of Kol Dam, at par with the

persons hailing from Mohal Tattapani, Randol and Kidia in Tehsil

Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. The case of the petitioners is that they

were owners in possession of land comprised in khasra

No.554/14/1 and 555/15, total measuring 2­10­14 hectares,

situated in Mohal Thogi, Tattapani, Tehsil Karsog, Distt. Mandi, H.P.

This land was acquired for the purpose of construction of Kol Dam

Project and an Award was passed by respondent No.2. Despite the

objections of the petitioners, the respondents ignored the same and

a meagre amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.5,37,355/­ was

awarded in favour of the petitioners as per Annexure P­3. According

to the petitioners, the other land owners whose land was acquired

for the same purpose have been paid compensation much more than

what was awarded to the petitioners and it is in these

circumstances, the petition stands filed.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners as also

learned Additional Advocate General and after perusing the

pleadings as well as documents appended therewith, this Court is of

the considered view that present Writ Petition in fact is not

maintainable, as the relief being prayed for therein cannot be

.

granted in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India.

4. It is not in dispute that the land of the petitioners was

acquired as per law and in case they were aggrieved by the Award

which was passed by the competent authority, then they ought to

have had resorted to the statutory remedies available to them under

the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. That not having been

done, the petitioners cannot be permitted to invoke the extra

ordinary jurisdiction of the Court in deciding such like issues,

because the issues undoubtedly involve seriously disputed question

of facts which cannot be decided in the Writ Petition.

5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed, but with the

observation that if so advised, the petitioners who do have statutory

remedies with regard to the grievances which have been raised by

way of the petition, may resort to the same.

6. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand

disposed of.

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge October 31, 2022 (Rishi)