Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 885 (HP)

Sohan Lal v. Union of India

2025-05-02

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2025
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 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 CompetentAuthority-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 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 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. 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 their residential houses thereupon. 10. 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 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; (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. 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. 13. It is not in dispute in this case that no award has been passed for the utilization of the land in issue by the NHAI for the reason that the land was the government land. 14. That being the case, the provisions of Section 64 of the 2013 Act are not attracted in the present case, as has been rightly held by learned Additional District Judge. 15. Therefore, as the petitioners are not covered presently by the provisions of 2013 Act, in the absence of the petitioners having been held to be owners of the utilized land by any Court of law so far, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. 16. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioners has prayed that it be observed that the findings returned by this Court while disposing of this petition shall not have any bearing on the civil suit filed by the petitioners seeking declaration that they have become the owners in possession of the suit land by way of adverse possession. Ordered accordingly.