Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others vs Rupa Devi (Deleted) & Another on 2 December, 2024
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
( 2024:HHC:13360-DB )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
LPA No.412 of 2024
Decided on : December 2, 2024
State of Himachal Pradesh & others .....Petitioners
Versus
Rupa Devi (deleted) & another ....Respondents
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioners : Mr.Anup Rattan, Advocate General,
with Mr.Sushant Keprate, Additional
Advocate General.
For the respondents : Respondent No.1 deleted vide order
dated 18.11.2024.
Mr.Arush Matlotia, Advocate, for
respondent No.2.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral)
This appeal has been preferred by the State against judgment dated 06.12.2023, passed in CWP No.5589 of 2020, titled Rupa Devi & another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, whereby learned Single Judge has allowed the petition, directing the appellants-State to acquire the land of the petitionres in following terms:-
"8. Therefore, in the absence of their being any material on record from which it can be inferred that the petitioners had voluntarily handed over the possession of the land to the respondent- department for the purpose of construction of the road, the order passed by the Authority rejecting the representation of the petitioners is not ...2... 2024:HHC:13360-DB sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is accordingly quashed.
9. Therefore, as the act of the respondents of utilizing the land of the petitioners without acquiring the same and without compensating them in accordance with law is not sustainable in law, this petition, as prayed for, is allowed and a direction is issued to the respondents to acquire the land of the petitioners in accordance with law and to pay them compensation. Let the acquisition proceeding be completed within a period of six months."
2. Parties to the lis are being referred as per their status in the writ petition.
3. It is undisputed that land of the petitioners comprised in Khewat No.77, 74, Khatoni No.109, 107, Khasra NO.716, measuring 04-06-17, 02-10-00 hectares, Barani Abal and 01-00-00 hectares Gair Mumkin Sarak, 00-16-17 hectares, Gair Mumkin Sarak, 00-16-17 hectares Gair Mumkin Bir, situated at Mohal Sarahan, Tehsil Padhar, District Mandi, H.P., was utilized by the State for construction of Balh Padhar Road, and the petitioners had approached the Court by filig CWP NO.1351 of 2018, titled as Rupa Devi & another vs. State of H.P. & others, seeking direction to the respondents to pay compensation for the land utilized for construction of aforesaid road. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 27.06.2018 directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioners. The representation of the petitoners was rejected by the concerned Authority vide office ...3... 2024:HHC:13360-DB order dated 31.12.2019. Hence, CWP No.5589 of 2020 was filed.
4. Present appeal has been filed on the ground that the petitioners were not entitled for relief on the ground of delay and latches.
5. Learned Advocate General has also submitted that SLP titled as State of H.P. & others vs. Nek Ram, preferred by the State, is also pending adjudication before the Supreme Court. We fail to understand that when large number of cases have been decided by the Supreme Court dismissing the SLP/Appeals of the State of H.P. in similar matters, then for what purpose the reference of pendency of another petition in the Supreme Court has been made on behalf of the State.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the Supreme Court in SLP(Civil) Diary No(s).49057 of 2024, titled as The State of Himachal Pradesh & others vs. Upender Kumar, preferred by the State against judgment dated 27.03.2024 passed in LPA No.54 of 2017, whereby petition preferred by the State has been dismissed by passing following order:-
"2. We have come across several matters wherein the State of Himachal Pradesh has challenged the orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, thereby directing the compensation to be paid to the respondent(s).
3. The writ petitioner(s) has approached the High Court with a grievance that though the possession of their lands were taken for road construction, they did not receive compensation.
...4... 2024:HHC:13360-DB
4. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has held that the State cannot take possession of citizen land without paying the compensation.
5. Although the right to property is no longer considered a fundamental right, it is still a constitutional right. The State cannot be permitted to acquire citizen land without paying appropriate compensation.
6. In these circumstances, it would have been justified in dismissing the special leave petition(s) with exemplary cost. However, we refrain from doing so now and simply dismiss these special leave petitions."
7. In similar matters, identical appeals have been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court passed in LPA No.40 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Ramesh Kumar, decided on 27th February, 2024; LPA No.24 of 2019, titled as State of HP vs. Baldev Singh and others, decided on 27th March, 2024; LPA No.144 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Karam Singh, decided on 27th May, 2024; LPA No.151 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Prem Nath, decided on 12th June, 2024; LPA No.154 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Sohan Lal, decided on 14th June, 2024; LPA No.177 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Satdev Sharma & others, decided on 1st July, 2024; LPA No.230 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Chet Ram & others, decided on 2nd September, 2024; LPA No.303 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Vishal Kumar & others, decided on 24th September, 2024; LPA No.371 of 2024, titled as State of H.P. & others vs. Lekh Ram & others, decided on November 12, 2024; LPA No.382 of 2024, titled as State of H.P. & others vs. Om Parkash and another, decided on November 26, 2024; LPA No.383 of 2024, titled as State of H.P. & others vs. Ram Chand & others, decided on November 26, 2024; and LPA ...5... 2024:HHC:13360-DB No.394 of 2024, titled as State of H.P. & others vs. Bakshi Ram & others, decided on November 27, 2024, by referring the judgment of the Supreme Court including judgment/order in SLP (C ) No.10492 of 2023, titled Dharnidhar Mishre (D) and another vs. State of Bihar and others, and Civil Appeal No.6466 of 2024, titled Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs. Bimal Kumar Shah and others; Vidya Devi vs. State of H.P. & others, (2020) 2 SCC 569; and Sukh Dutt Ratra and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, (2022) 7 SCC 508.
8. In similar matters, appeals LPA No.233 of 2024, titled as State of H.P. & others vs. Kamla Devi; LPA No.234 of 2024, titled as State of H.P. & others vs. Sunka Ram and others; LPA No.235 of 2024, titled as State of H.P. & others vs. Mahanti and others; LPA No.240 of 2024, titled as State of H.P. & others vs. Manbhari and others; LPA No.241 of 2024, titled as State of H.P. & others vs. Premu & another; and LPA No.248 of 2024, titled as State of H.P. & others vs. Ludar Chand, also stand dismissed by this High Court vide common judgment dated 10.09.2024.
9. Learned Advocate General is not able to point out any ground indicating that present case is not squarely covered by aforesaid verdicts of the Court.
...6... 2024:HHC:13360-DB
10. Learned Advocate General submits that in similar matter direction has been issued to consider deemed acquisition of the land at the time of utilization and, therefore, he has prayed for modifying the present judgment accordingly.
11. In our considered view, aforesaid prayer regarding deemed acquisition is not tenable because such directions would create chaos and confusion with respect to the adequate and fair compensation for which the owner is entitled. A due process is to be followed for determine adequate and fair compensation as provided under law either under old Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or new Act, i.e. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. There is no provision for deemed acquisition either under old Act or new Act. In case of deemed acquisition, it would also be difficult to decide under which Act fair, just and adequate compensation is to be determined. Therefore, we do not find any merit in submissions of learned Advocate General to observe that land utilized by the State, without following the process of law, is deemed to have been acquired.
12. In aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or any other perversity in the impugned judgment. Therefore, appeal is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits.
...7... 2024:HHC:13360-DB
13. We consider it fit to record that State is preferring the appeals despite dismissal of their similar appeals in identical matters. Such conduct is not in consonance with the Litigation Policy adopted by the State of HP which is causing wasting the time and energy of the State as well as the Court. It may invite imposing cost but taking lenient view, no cost is being imposed.
14. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with direction that consequential action, in terms of judgment dated 06.12.2023, passed in CWP No.5589 of 2020, titled Rupa Devi & another vs. State of H.P. & others, be taken within four weeks.
15. Appeal stands disposed of alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
( Vivek Singh Thakur ) Judge.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
December 2, 2024 Judge.
(Purohit)