Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1141 (HP)

Balbir Singh v. State of HP

2018-06-21

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, SANDEEP SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. 1. In the nature of the dispute involved in this petition, we propose to dispose of the same at this stage. 2. The facts reveal that the petitioners and respondent No.3 as well as proforma respondents No. 4 to 12 are joint owners in possession of the land entered in khata khatauni No. 67min/116 min bearing khasra No.1902/357, measuring 177.0 Sq. meters situate at mohal Salogra, District Solan, H.P. The said land has been acquired by the National Highway Authority through respondents No.1 and 2 for construction of four lane road. One of the co-sharers i.e. third respondent has filed the civil suit for declaration that he along with respondent No. 12 Jitender is exclusive owner in possession of the land in question in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Solan. In the interim, learned trial Court has directed the parties to maintain status quo qua the land in dispute. As a result whereof, the petitioners herein, who claims themselves to be joint owners in possession of the suit land, could not receive the compensation awarded by the second respondent. 3. The interim order (Annexure P-7) has been sought to be quashed and set-aside with further direction to second respondent to release the compensation to the petitioners in terms of the award (Annexure P-2). The relief has been sought on the grounds inter-alia that the suit is not maintainable and any dispute concerning the apportionment etc. of the acquired land could have been settled through the due process of law i.e. in the reference Court, under Section 76 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It has further been urged that under Section 63 of the Act, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any dispute relating to acquisition proceedings. In the alternative, a direction has been sought to be issued to learned Senior Civil Judge to decide interim application in a time bound manner. 4. We are not entering upon the controversy on merits for the reason that if the suit is not maintainable and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the same, the petitioners are at liberty to resort to the remedy available to them in accordance with law. 4. We are not entering upon the controversy on merits for the reason that if the suit is not maintainable and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the same, the petitioners are at liberty to resort to the remedy available to them in accordance with law. However, prima-facie, we are satisfied that in view of the provisions contained under Section 63 of the Act, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit pertaining to the acquisition proceedings and any other related issues including the dispute qua apportionment of the amount awarded as compensation. Such dispute in terms of Section 76 of the Act, can be agitated before the authority to whom it is referred by the Collector for settlement, however, keeping in view that the interim order (Annexure P-6) was passed long back on 16.2.2017, a direction to the learned trial Court to dispose of the application finally at the earliest would serve the ends of justice. 5. The writ petition, therefore, is disposed of with a direction to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Solan, to decide the application bearing CMA No. 26/6 of 2017 filed in CS No. 16/1 of 2017 at the earliest, however, not beyond 31.7.2018. Parties through learned counsel representing them are directed to appear before the trial Court on 6.7.2018. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. Authenticated copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court for compliance.