Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 303 (HP)

Surjit Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector

2017-04-06

SANJAY KAROL

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. 1. Land in question, undisputedly, was acquired by the beneficiary in terms of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). Possession of the claimant’s land was taken over, in accordance with law, i.e. under the proceedings initiated under the Act. 2. According to the respondent, the amount of compensation so adjudicated by the Collector Land Acquisition, came to be deposited with the Collector Land Acquisition. This Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? was so done in terms of Section 31 of the Act and pursuant to award passed under the Act. 3. In this petition, petitioner, taking strength of the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Amended Act’), assails the actions initiated by the State under the Act. Challenge is two fold:- (a) land was never put to use by the beneficiary; (b) amount of compensation never came to be paid to the claimant. 4. With respect to ground (a), beneficiary points out that in fact, the land stands fully utilized and as such it is a disputed question of fact. With respect to the amount of compensation, it is pointed out that amount stood deposited, before the enactment of the Amended Act, in terms of the Act , before the appropriate authorities. 5. The Amended Act came to be notified only w.e.f. 1.1.2014, before which date, all actions, contemplated under the Act, stood initiated and completed by the acquirer and the beneficiary. Thus, it would not be open for the claimant to seek recourse to the provisions of Section 24 of the Amended Act which only contemplate following situation for initiation of such like action:- (i) Where no award under Section 11 of the Act is issued; (ii) Where no possession of land, for a period more than five years, prior to the commencement of the Amended Act, pursuant to award passed under Section 11 of the Act, came to be taken over by the acquirer or where no compensation in terms of the Act, stood paid under the provisions thereof. 6. 6. It is no doubt true that the provisions of the Act, by virtue of Section 114 of the Amended Act came to be repealed, but then, there is a saving clause, contemplating all actions initiated under the Act , to be completed only in terms thereof and not under the provisions of the Amended Act, to the extent permissible in terms thereof. 7. The claimant seeks reliance on the decision rendered by the apex Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and another vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and others, (2014) 3 SCC 183 , which also is of no consequence or benefit to them. In fact, the ratio as laid down therein, supports the beneficiary. The Court clarified that mere deposit of the amount for the land so acquired under the Act, in terms thereof, itself, would be sufficient enough, and it is not the mandate of law, that either the acquirer or the beneficiary is required to pay or offer the said amount to the claimant, more so, when, as is the position in the instant case, is not acceptable by the latter. With the aforesaid observations, present petition, devoid of merit is dismissed, so also, pending application(s), if any.