Himachal Pradesh High Court

Decided On: 02.05.2025 vs Union Of India And Others on 2 May, 2025

Author: Ajay Mohan Goel

Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel

                                                                                    2025:HHC:12206
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                                       CWP No.          3783 of 2025
                                                       Decided on: 02.05.2025
Sohan Lal and others                                                   ... Petitioners

                            Versus

Union of India and others                                                       ... Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
_____________________________________________________
For the petitioners     :     Mr. Aditya Kaushal, Advocate.

For the respondents                  :        Mr. Balram Sharma,                    DSGI,        for
                                              respondent No. 1-UOI.

                                     :        Mrs. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate for
                                              respondent No. 2-NHAI.

                                     :        Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Addl. AG for
                                              respondent No. 3-CALA.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge                        (Oral)

Notice. Mr. Balram Sharma, learned Deputy Solicitor

General of India, Mrs. Shreya Chauhan, learned Counsel and Mr.

Pushpender Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accept

notice on behalf of respondent No. 1, 2 and 3, respectively.

2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has

challenged order dated 21.10.2024, passed by the Court of learned

Additional District Judge-1, Kangra at Dharamshala, in CMA No.

363-D/2023, titled as Sohan Lal and others vs. The Competent

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2025:HHC:12206 Authority-cum- Land Acquisition Collector, in terms whereof, an

application filed by the petitioners under proviso 2 attached to

Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in

Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, read

with Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, has been

dismissed by learned Court below inter alia by holding that as there

was no award made in favour of the petitioners and as they were in

fact claiming possession over the utilized land by putting forth the

plea of their having become owners thereof by way of adverse

possession, the provisions of Section 64 of the Act were not attracted

as the rights of the applicants were still to be established.

3. With the consent of the parties, the petition is being

disposed of today itself.

4. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present

petition are that as per National Highways Authority of India, it has

utilized certain land belonging to the Government of Himachal

Pradesh for the purpose of construction of National Highway in

issue. The petitioners on the other hand claim that as this land was

in their possession as cultivators thereof in terms of the revenue

record, therefore, they have a right to be compensated in terms of

the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

2025:HHC:12206 Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter

to be referred as 'the 2013 Act' for short).

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioners have filed a suit for declaration that they have become

owners in possession of the land in issue by way of adverse

possession, which is still pending adjudication. He submitted that

the petitioners had constructed houses over said piece of land,

which were part of the survey conducted by CALA as is evident from

Annexure P-2. He further submitted that by virtue of notification of

the Central Government, as mentioned in para 9 and 10 of the

petition, the petitioners were entitled to ex-gratia payment for the

structures built and they be also treated as interested parties for the

purpose of the payment of compensation under the NHAI Act and

2013 Act.

6. As already observed hereinabove, in terms of impugned

order, learned Additional District Judge-1, Kangra, has dismissed

the application by observing that as the petitioners were claiming

their right over the property in issue by way of adverse possession,

which right of theirs was still to be determined and as there was no

award in favour of the petitioners, therefore, application under

Section 64 of the 2013 Act was not maintainable.

2025:HHC:12206

7. Having carefully gone through the impugned order as

well as other record of the case and after hearing learned Counsel for

the parties at length, this Court is of the considered view that there

is no infirmity in the order impugned and therefore, this petition has

no merit.

8. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in

Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 has

been brought into force in place of the earlier existing Land

Acquisition Act, 1894, for land acquisition for industrialization,

development of essential infrastructural facilities and provide just

and fair compensation to the affected families whose land has been

acquired or proposed to be acquired or are affected by such

acquisition and made adequate provisions for such affected persons

for their rehabilitation and resettlement and for ensuring that the

cumulative outcome of compulsory acquisition should be that

affected persons become partners in development leading to an

improvement in their post acquisition social and economic status

and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

9. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioners are not

the owners of the land in issue. They claim to be in cultivable

possession thereof and they also claimed that they have constructed

2025:HHC:12206 their residential houses thereupon.

10. Section 3(c) of the 2013 Act defines the "affected

families" as under:-

"(c) "affected family" includes--

(i) a family whose land or other immovable property has been

acquired;

(ii) a family which does not own any land but a member or

members of such family may be agricultural labourers,

tenants including any form of tenancy or holding of usufruct

right, share-croppers or artisans or who may be working in

the affected area for three years prior to the acquisition of the

land, whose primary source of livelihood stand affected by

the acquisition of land;

(iii) the Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers

who have lost any of their forest rights recognised under the

Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers

(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (2 of 2007) due to

acquisition of land;

(iv) family whose primary source of livelihood for three years

prior to the acquisition of the land is dependent on forests or

water bodies and includes gatherers of forest produce,

hunters, fisher folk and boatmen and such livelihood is

affected due to acquisition of land;

2025:HHC:12206

(v) a member of the family who has been assigned land by the

State Government or the Central Government under any of its

schemes and such land is under acquisition;

(vi) a family residing on any land in the urban areas for

preceding three years or more prior to the acquisition of the

land or whose primary source of livelihood for three years

prior to the acquisition of the land is affected by the

acquisition of such land;"

11. In the light of the fact that the land in issue belongs to

the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which is not much in dispute

as same is also evident from the fact that the petitioners themselves

have filed a civil suit against the State of H.P. for declaration that

they have become owners in possession of the same by way of

adverse possession, the petitioners do not fall within the definition of

affected families in terms of Section 3(c) of the 2013 Act.

12. Now coming to Section 64 of the 2013 Act, provisions

thereof state that any person interested who has not accepted the

"award" may, by written application to the Collector, require that the

matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the

Authority, as the case may be, etc.