Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1703 (HP)

Attru. v. Principal Secretary (Power)

2018-09-20

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Heard further. On the previous date, following order came to be passed in this petition. “On hearing this matter for sometime, perhaps the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner was to have preferred the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for determination of the market value of the acquired land and enhancement of compensation and not filing the present writ petition in this Court. The petitioner, if so advised, may withdraw the writ petition and prefer the reference petition, if law permits him to do so. Of course, in the matter of limitation, he may resort to the provisions contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, had he not been pursuing the remedy in appropriate forum. Learned counsel representing the petitioner seeks adjournment to have instructions. Allowed. List on 20.09.2018.” 2. Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate, learned Counsel submits that the petitioner is not willing to withdraw the writ petition and want that the same is decided on merits. 3. In the given facts and circumstances, the present is a case where the market value of the acquired land has been assessed as per the classification of the acquired land i.e. ‘Banjar Kadeem’ entered in the revenue record and compensation paid by Land Acquisition Collector and received by him accordingly. Subsequently, in an application he filed for correction of the revenue entries, the classification of the acquired land came to be changed as ‘Kayar Awal’ from ‘Banjar Kadeem’ vide order dated 7.3.2011 Annexure P-3. It is in this backdrop, a direction has been sought against the respondents to redetermine the market value of the acquired land by getting the same as ‘Kayar Awal’ and the compensation at enhanced rates paid accordingly. 4. The beneficiaries i.e. respondents No. 3 and 4 have resisted and contested the writ petition on the grounds, inter alia, that the market value of the acquired land has rightly been assessed after taking into consideration its nature and classification and the just and reasonable compensation awarded to the petitioner. It is also pointed out that had he been aggrieved by the award, reference should have been filed for redetermination of the market value and enhancement of the compensation under Section 18 of the Land Reference Act. The writ petition, as such, is stated to be not maintainable nor the petitioner entitled to the relief sought. It is also pointed out that had he been aggrieved by the award, reference should have been filed for redetermination of the market value and enhancement of the compensation under Section 18 of the Land Reference Act. The writ petition, as such, is stated to be not maintainable nor the petitioner entitled to the relief sought. Also that the order Annexure P-3 qua change of the classification of the acquired land from ‘Banjar Kadeem’ to ‘Kayar Awal’ is null and void being not passed by Land Revenue Officer under the provisions of Land Revenue Act and rather by the Land Reforms Officers that too behind the back of beneficiaries i.e. respondents No. 3 and 4. 5. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have resisted and contested the writ petition on the similar grounds. 6. On taking into considerations the pleadings of the parties and also the submissions made on both sides it is apparent that had the petitioner been aggrieved by the determination of the market value of the acquired land and the compensation awarded, he would have resorted to the remedy available to him under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The relief as sought cannot be granted by this court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Otherwise also, the date when the land was acquired its classification recorded in the revenue record was ‘Banjar Kadeem’ and not ‘Kayar Awal’. Therefore, at a subsequent stage on the plea of the nature thereof changed as ‘Kayar Awal’ that too behind the back of the beneficiaries, the order Annexure P-3 is hardly of any help to the petitioner. The judgment of this Court dated 28.2.2012 passed in CWP No. 3918 of 2011, title Jawahar Singh and others versus The Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and others is not applicable in the given facts and circumstances because in that case the respondents-beneficiaries had itself agreed to pay the market value of the land at the same rate as awarded to the adjoining land owners in respect of their land acquired for the same public purpose qua which no award was passed though it was acquired and taken in possession by the respondents-beneficiaries. 7. In view of the legal as well as factual position discussed hereinabove, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 8. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand dismissed.