Himachal Pradesh High Court
Seli Hydro Electric Power Company Ltd vs State Of H.P. And Others on 17 June, 2015
Bench: Chief Justice, Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
.
CWP No. 9566 of 2014 Judgment reserved on: 20.5.2015 Date of Decision : June 17th , 2015 Seli Hydro Electric Power Company Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? Yes For the Petitioner : Mr. M.H. Baig, Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Senior Advocates, with Ms. Ritu Bhalla, Ms. Shivambika Sinha, Mr. Janesh Gupta and Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocates.
For the respondents : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Mr. Anup Rattan, Mr. Romesh Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge The petitioner has sought directions for quashing letter issued by the State on 5.8.2014 stating therein that the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 1894 Act) stands lapsed and directed the Land Acquisition Collector, Udaipur to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 2013 Act). The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the opinion of the Principal Secretary (Law) ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:22:47 :::HCHP 2on the basis of which the impugned letter has been issued. The .
petitioner has lastly sought a writ of mandamus seeking directions to the respondents to proceed with deliberate speed to conclude the proceedings under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or in the alternative to proceed with the Land Acquisition proceedings initiated by way of Section 4 Notification under the second proviso to Section 19 (7) of the Act of 2013.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 9.6.2008 the Government of Himachal Pradesh invited bids for setting up of 320 MW Hydro Electric Power Plant in District Lahaul and Spiti. On 28.2.2009 SELI Project was awarded to M/s Hindustan Powerprojects Private Limited (then known as Moser Baer Projects Private Limited).
3. On 22.3.2011 Hindustan Powerprojects Private Limited entered into a Pre-Implementation Agreement with Government of Himachal Pradesh. Simultaneously, a tripartite agreement was executed between the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Hindustan Powerprojects Private Limited and petitioner for transferring all assets, liabilities, obligations, privileges, NOCs of Hindustan Powerprojects Private Limited arising under the terms of the Pre-Implementation Agreement to the petitioner.
4. On 9.9.2011 Directorate of Energy increased the installed capacity of the SELI Project from 320 MW to 400 MW subject to fulfillment of certain terms and conditions provided therein.
5. On 15.11.2011 a joint Inspection Committee consisting of respondent No.5, Divisional Forest Officer, Range Forest Officer, Assistant Engineer, H.P. Public Works Department, Assistant ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:22:47 :::HCHP 3 Engineer, HPSEB Limited and Assistant Engineer, I&PH Department, .
conducted a joint inspection of the project sites proposed by the petitioner and recommended diversion of forest land admeasuring 276.1875 Ha under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and acquisition of private land measuring 16.7779 Ha under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
6. On 28.2.2012 inescapability certificate dated 27.2.2012 was forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner, Lahaul and Spiti to respondent No.5 clearly stating therein that the land required for the construction of the SELI Project was inescapable and the landowners would not be rendered landless due to acquisition of the proposed land.
7. On 3.3.2012 petitioner submitted a proposal to respondent No.5 for acquisition of private land required for the construction of SELI Project under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. It was requested to acquire private land admeasuring 198-12-19 bigha under the 1894 Act.
8. On 9.3.2012 respondent No.5 wrote to the Deputy Commissioner, District Lahaul and Spiti, recommending acquisition of 198-12-19 bigha of land in revenue villages Udaipur, Salpat, Madgran, Kurched and Salgran in favour of the petitioner. It was also requested that the proposal for the acquisition be forwarded to respondent No.1 for approval and issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
9. In compliance with Section 4 of the 1894 Act, the preliminary notification for acquisition of land was issued on 7.3.2013 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:22:47 :::HCHP 4 by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. On various dates, Section 4 .
Notification was published in various newspapers and wide publicity was given to Section 4 notification in the locality through the field revenue agency of the area concerned.
10. On 25.4.2013 Section 4 Notification, being Notification No. Vidyut-CH: (5)-5/2012 was published in the official gazette and objections were invited from concerned persons within a period of 30 days from the date of said notification.
11. The Ministry of Environment and Forests (for short "MOEF") on 1.7.2013 in principle approved the divergence of forest land. The environmental clearance was granted by the MOEF to the petitioner vide letter No. J-12011/6/2010-1A.1 dated 3.7.2013.
12. On 10.10.2013 respondent No.5 after conducting proceedings under Section 5A of the 1894 Act, prepared his report under Section 5A (2) of the said 1894 Act.
13. On 19.10.2013 respondent No.5 forwarded the report dated 10.10.2013 under Section 5A (2) of the 1894 Act to the respondent No.1 for further action. The documents pertaining to the proceedings culminating in the report including copies of objections filed, statements recorded and the proceedings were also enclosed with the said letter.
14. On 3.12.2013 respondent No.1 wrote to respondent No.5 stating that report under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 (for short 1963 Rules) had not been received and respondent No.5 was requested to forward such a report to respondent No.1.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:22:47 :::HCHP 515. On 1.1.2014 the Right to Fair Compensation and .
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force.
16. On 3.1.2014 respondent No.5 wrote to the petitioner calling upon it to file a representation on matters detailed in the said letter in terms of Rule 4 (1) of the 1963 Rules. The petitioner immediately responded to this letter on 6.1.2014 and provided all supporting documents.
17. On 1.2.2014 respondent No.5 wrote to the District Agriculture Officer, Lahaul and Spiti, requesting him to submit his report whether the agricultural land sought to be acquired was "Good Agricultural Land" and/or how much area of this land was of average or above average productivity.
18. On 13.2.2014 the District Agriculture Officer responded to the letter of respondent No.5 and furnished the desired information. On 17.2.2014 respondent No.1 wrote to respondent No.4 with reference to the 2013 Act alongwith a request to frame rules under the 2013 Act and to indicate the further course of action in cases where Section 4 notification under the 1894 Act already stood issued.
19. On 4.3.2014 respondent No.5 submitted to respondent No.1 a report in terms of Rule 4 of the 1963 Rules. The approximate amount payable in lieu of the land to be acquired in terms of the 2013 Act was stated in the said letter to be Rs.1,22,20,00,000/- (Rupees One Hundred and Twenty Two Crores Twenty Lacs).
20. On 13.3.2014 the respondent No.4 in response to respondent No.1 letter dated 17.2.2014 clarified that in terms of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:22:47 :::HCHP 6 Section 24 (1) (a) of the 2013 Act, in cases where the proceedings for .
acquisition were initiated, no award was made under Section 11 of the 1894 Act, then the compensation should be determined as per the provisions of the 2013 Act.
21. On 2.5.2014 meeting of the Land Acquisition Committee were held under the Chairmanship of respondent No.4 and recommended that notifications under Sections 6 and 7 of the 1894 Act be issued. On 26.5.2014 respondent No.1 forwarded a draft of the agreement under Section 41 of the 1894 Act to the petitioner requesting it to execute the same.
22. On 19.6.2014 the agreement in terms of Section 41 of the 1894 Act was executed between the petitioner and the Governor of Himachal Pradesh. This agreement was directed to be published in the official gazette and the same was published in the official gazette on 1.7.2014.
23. On 5.8.2014 the respondent No.1 wrote to the respondent No.5 and sent intimation to the petitioner that as per advice received from respondent No.2, fresh acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act should be commenced in respect of SELI Project since one year period from the date of Section 4 Notification had lapsed.
24. On 11.8.2014 the petitioner after receipt of the letter dated 5.8.2014 from respondent No.1, responded to it and pointed out that no delay whatsoever had occurred on account of the petitioner and requested that extension be granted for issuance of declaration of purpose notification and acquisition proceedings be continued.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:22:47 :::HCHP 725. On 28.8.2014 respondent No.4 wrote to the respondent .
No.1 stating that the Revenue Department was not in a position to render any advice on the representation of the petitioner dated 11.8.2014 and recommended that respondent No.1 may re-examine the issue in consultation with respondent No.2 under the power to remove difficulties Clause (Section 113 of the 2013 Act) considering the geographical/geological conditions of the project location in Chenab Valley, being a snow bound area.
26. When no response was received from the respondents, the petitioner again on 1.10.2014 sent a representation to the respondents reiterating therein its earlier representation dated 11.8.2014 and it set out the events of delay caused at the hands of the respondents.
27. On 4.11.2014 the petitioner followed up on its letter dated 1.10.2014, but has not received any response from the respondents. It thereafter has been consistently following up with the respondents, but are yet to receive any response on such representations. Left with no other option, it has approached this Court for the grant of following substantive reliefs:
(a) A writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned letter No. MPP-
Chh(5)-5/2012 dated 05.08.2014 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No.1 and the impugned opinion of respondent No.2 relied upon and mentioned extensively in the impugned letter.
(b) A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith issue a declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act as the agreement under Section 41 of the 1894 Act has already been entered into.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:22:47 :::HCHP 8(c) A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to proceed with deliberate speed to conclude the proceedings under Section 6 .
of the 1894 Act within a stipulated time.
(d) In the alternative to prayers (b) and (c) above, issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to proceed with the present case under the second proviso to Section 19 (7) of the 2013 Act and to extend the time for issuance of a notification for declaration of purpose and to continue with the Notifiction No. Vidyut-CH: (5)-5/2012 dated 25.04.2013 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
28. The respondents in response to the writ petition have filed their reply and have averred that the department through the Director of Energy entered on 22.3.2011 a Pre-implementation Agreement with M/s Moser Bear Projects Private Limited and a Tripartite Agreement was also executed through the Director of Energy with M/s Moser Bear Projects Pvt. Ltd and M/s Seli Hydroelectric Power Company for setting up of Seli Hydro Power Project (320 MW). The capacity of this project was subsequently enhanced from 300 MW to 400 MW.
29. The respondent department on receipt of a proposal from the Land Acquisition Collector-cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Udaipur i.e. Respondent No.5, for acquisition of land in favour of the petitioner for implementation of Seli (400 MW) HEP issued the preliminary notification on 7.3.2013 under provisions of Section 4 of the 1894 Act after completing codal formalities and obtaining concurrence of Forest, Tribal Development and Law Departments. The respondent department was further required to issue declaration i.e. Notification under Section 6 of the Act within a period of one year from the date of last publication in Rajpatra i.e. 24.4.2013 of Notification under Section ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:22:47 :::HCHP 9 4, which could not be issued within stipulated period for the following .
reasons:
"(i) That the report under Section 5(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was submitted by the Land Acquisition Collector on 19.10.2013 i.e. after a period of 7 months from the issue of notification under Section 4.During examination of this report, it was noticed that the report of Land Acquisition Collector under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Companies Act, 1963 was not available which was, therefore, asked from the Land Acquisition Collector on 3.12.2013 and received subsequently on 5.3.2014.
(ii) That in the meanwhile, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was repealed and the new Act namely "The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013" came into force w.e.f. 1.1.2014 which provided that all fresh notifications for acquiring the land in any area for public purposes henceforth now shall be initiated as per provisions contained in the new Act ibid. Therefore, the case was returned to the Land Acquisition Collector on 6.3.2014 to facilitate required action under the provisions of new Act at his level with the following advice:
".....that since the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 has come into force w.e.f. 1.1.2014 and all fresh notifications for acquiring the land in any area for public purposes henceforth now shall be initiated as per provisions contained in the new Act ibid. As provided under Section 109 of the said Act bestows powers with the appropriate Government i.e.State Government to make rules for carrying out the provisions of this Act. As such in order to comply with the provisions contained under Sections 2 (2), 2(3) (a), 4 (1), 6 (1), 16, 19(2), 33 (3), 41 (4), 43 (2), 45 (3), 48(3), 50(3), 55 (3), 56, 60(1), 84 (2), 101 and (t) manner of publication whenever the provisions of this Act provide for; the statutory rules are being framed by the Revenue Department. However, Section 24 of the Act makes the position clear where award u/s 11 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 has not been made and even otherwise.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:22:47 :::HCHP 10
In view of the above mentioned facts and position the case is returned herewith to you with the request to facilitate required action .
at LAO level under the new Act, till new notification of Rules is made by Revenue Department".
(iii) That the matter was taken up with the State Revenue Department vide letter dated 17.2.2014 for framing of required Rules under the provisions of New Act so that land acquisition cases could be processed accordingly. It was also requested to clarify and advise the further course of action in such cases where proposals for acquisition of lands have already been initiated and Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 stands issued. A clarification in this regard was conveyed by the Revenue Department (respondent No.4.) on 13.3.2014 stating that "the question raised is squarely covered under the provisions of Section 24 (1) (a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 which clearly states that in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where no award under Section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply. Hence, you are advised to take action as per provisions of aforesaid section". Thus, it took about one month's time to have the advice from the Revenue Department.
(iv) That on receipt of above advice from the Revenue Department, proceedings were further processed by the respondent Department for issuance of declaration/ Notification under Sections 6 & 7 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the case proposal was sent to Revenue Department on 31.3.2014 to place the matter before the Land Acquisition Committee for its consideration and recommendations. This Committee considered the proposal in its meeting held on 2.5.2014 and recommended the acquisition of land measuring 197-14-15 bighas in Villages Udaipur, Saplat, Madgran, Kurched and Salgran of Sub Division Udaipur for construction of Seli HEP (400 MW) in favour of the petitioner and further recommended ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:22:47 :::HCHP 11 to issue the notifications under Sections 6 and 7 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, proceedings of this meeting .
was circulated by the Revenue Department only on 22.5.2014 (i.e. with a delay of 20 days) and received in the respondent department on 23.5.2014 i.e. after the expiry of limitation period as stipulated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894."
30. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully.
31. Mr. M.H. Baig, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the petitioner cannot be prejudiced for the inaction and delay caused by the respondents themselves. He has further argued that the respondents have completely misconstrued and misinterpreted the provisions of Section 6 of the 1894 Act. The impugned letter relies on proviso (1) (ii) to Section 6 (1) of the 1894 Act to the effect that no declaration under Section 6 can be made after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the Section 4 notification. But the respondents have failed to take into consideration the opening sentence of Section 6 makes it clear that the said Section 6 alongwith all provisos is subject to Part VII of the 1894 Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984, which specifically deals with the acquisition of the land for companies. He further contended that it was only after the statutory requirement as envisaged in Part VII of the 1894 Act are fulfilled that the legal prohibition to "put in force" only Section 6 of the 1894 Act is lifted. Therefore, any provision of Section 6 including its provisos will not come into operation till the stipulated requirements of Part VII are fulfilled.
32. The sum and substance of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section 6 of the 1894 Act is subject to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:22:47 :::HCHP 12 Part VII of the Act and execution of the agreement under Section 41 .
thereof, is not only reasonable but even necessary when a company is involved for whose use the proposed land is sought to be acquired. On the question of limitation, it has been argued that the same shall not begin to run unless and until the proceedings under Part VII are complete. He further contended that the rigors of limitation set forth in proviso 1 (ii) to Section 6 of the 1894 Act have been relaxed under the 2013 Act inasmuch as the second proviso to Section 19 (7) thereof provides for and vests with the respondents the power to extend one year period for making a declaration of purpose in circumstances that justify such an extension.
33. While on the other hand, learned Advocate General has argued that once the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had lapsed prior to that the 1894 Act being repealed and the new 2013 Act had come into force on 1.1.2014, then in such situation there was no option with the respondents but to proceed for fresh land acquisition proceedings under the new Act. He further contended that insofar as the pending land acquisition proceedings as on 1.1.2014 are concerned, only the provision of Section 24 (1) (a) of the 2013 Act was relevant which reads as under:
"(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - (a) where no award under Section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, than, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of the compensation shall apply".
We now proceed to deal with the rival contentions of the parties.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:22:47 :::HCHP 13Delay on the part of the respondents:
.
34. A perusal of the record would show that it was only on account of the respondents that there has been delay in commencing and taking to its logical end the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. The respondent No.5 received notification under Section 4 of the Act on 7.3.2013 and he promptly within three days on 11.3.2013 dealt with the same. The objections from the land owners were received and dealt with by respondent No.5 without any delay, but then the issuance of final report under Section 5 A (2) of the 1894 Act took six months and thereafter the report was prepared on 10.10.2013 and final report under Section 5 A (2) of the 1894 Act was issued.
35. The record further reveals that first, it took respondent No.5 almost five months and fifteen days from the date of publication of the Section 4 notification to complete the proceedings under Section 5A of the 1894 Act; second having prepared this report, it took the respondent No.5 nine days to forward the same to respondent No.1;
third at the time of sending of the report under Section 5A(2) of the 1894 Act on 19.10.2013, respondent No.5 ought to have but failed to send the report under Rule 4 of the 1963 Rules; fourth, after having received the said report under Section 5A of the 1894 Act, respondent No.1 took almost forty-five days to realise that the report under Rule 4 of the 1963 Rules had not been received by it and pointed the same out only vide letter dated 3.12.2013; fifth respondent No.5 thereafter took a month to intimate the petitioner about the above and sought the information from it for preparing the Rule 4 report vide its letter dated ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:22:47 :::HCHP 14 3.1.2014; sixth though the petitioner vide its letter dated 6.1.2014 .
promptly supplied the information sought within three days of the letter dated 3.1.2014 (though almost all the information was already otherwise with respondent No.5), respondent No.5 forwarded the report under Rule 4 of the 1963 Rules only on 4.3.2014; seventh the meeting of the Land Acquisition Committee dated 2.5.2014 was held after about one month twenty eight days of the report dated 4.3.2014 under Rule 4 of the 1963 Rules. The respondents in the meeting of even date recommended inter alia that the notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act be issued. It took respondent No.4 about twenty-five days to reply the same and there is no explanation whatsoever for such delay. Here, it may be pertinent to note that while respondent No.1's query dated 17.2.2014 was pending with respondent No. 4, respondent No.1 had already issued direction to respondent No.5 on 6.3.2014 to proceed under the 2013 Act.
36. After receipt of the reply from respondent No.4 on 13.3.2014 it took the respondent No.1 seventeen days for asking the respondent No.4 to place the matter before the Land Acquisition Committee vide his letter dated 31.3.2014. It took thirty-two days for holding the meeting of the Land Acquisition Committee which was finally convened by respondent No.4 on 2.5.2014. It took twenty days to circulate the proceedings of the Land Acquisition Committee which was circulated on 22.5.2014. It was eventually one month eighteen days after the decision had been taken by the Land Acquisition Committee that the agreement under Section 41 of the 1894 Act came to be executed on 19.6.2014 and after about twelve days of the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:22:47 :::HCHP 15 execution of this agreement, the same was published in the official .
gazette on 1.7.2014. Draft notification under Sections 6 and 7 of the 1894 Act was sent to respondent No.2 for vetting on 7.7.2014 i.e. six days after publication of Section 41 agreement. It was eventually on 5.8.2014 i.e. after twenty-nine days after draft notification under Section 6 and 7 of the 1894 Act was sent to respondent No.2 for vetting that the impugned letter was issued by respondent No.1 on 5.8.2014 directing respondent No.5 to initiate fresh proceedings under the 2013 Act on the ground that one year period had lapsed from the date of issuance of the Section 4 notification.
37. Not only this, the representations made by the petitioner against the impugned letter dated 11.8.2014, 1.10.2014 and 4.11.2014 were left unattended and it is only pursuant to the directions passed by this Court on 19.12.2014 that the same came to be decided.
38. The aforesaid narration of facts clearly reveals that there has been an unreasonable delay at the instance of the respondents in finalizing the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. The respondents ought to had dealt with the case immediately or in any case within "reasonable time". The authority cannot neglect to do that which the law mandates and requires doing. By not promptly issuing notifications as envisaged under the Land Acquisition Act, it can safely be concluded that the respondents have failed to discharge their statutory duty and the petitioner is therefore fully justified in urging that such default in discharge of statutory duty by respondents under the Act cannot prejudice it.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:22:47 :::HCHP 1639. We also find merit in the contention of the petitioner that .
once the respondents had itself failed to discharge its statutory duty, they cannot claim any advantage of the same by directing the respondent No.5 to initiate fresh proceedings under the 2013 Act on the ground that one year period had lapsed from the date of issuance of Section 4 notification.
40. In drawing such conclusion, we are supported by the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kusheshwar Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar and others (2007) 11 SCC 447 wherein it has been held as follows:
"12. Having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed. So far as the contention of the appellant that the proceedings had been initiated in 1973-74 and final order was passed on 7.1.1976 is not disputed and cannot be disputed. If it is so, submission of the appellant is well founded that final statement as required by sub section (1) of Section 11 ought to have been issued and effect ought to have been given to the final order. Admittedly, no appeal was filed. Nor the order was challenged by any party. The appellant is right in contending that final statement ought to have been issued immediately or in any case within "reasonable time". The authority cannot neglect to do that which the law mandates and requires doing. By not issuing consequential final statement under Section 11 (I) of the Act, the authority had failed to discharge its statutory duty. Obviously, therefore, the appellant is justified in urging that such default in discharge of statutory duty by the respondents under the Act cannot prejudice him. To that extent, therefore, the grievance of the appellant is well founded.
13. The appellant is also right in contending before this Court that the power under Section 32-B of the Act to initiate fresh proceedings could not have been exercised. Admittedly, Section 32-B came on the statute book by Bihar Act 55 of 1982. The case of the appellant was over much prior to the amendment of the Act and insertion of Section 32-B. The appellant, therefore, is right in contending that the authorities cannot be allowed to take undue advantage of their own ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:22:47 :::HCHP 17 default in failure to act in accordance with law and initiate fresh proceedings."
.
Position of law:
41. Before we proceed further, certain provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and The Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 may be noticed.
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 reads thus:
"4. Publication of preliminary notification and power of officers thereupon. -
(1) Whenever it appears to the [appropriate Government] the land in any locality [is needed or] is likely to be needed for any public purpose [or for a company], a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette [and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language], and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality [(the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice , being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification)].
(2) Thereupon it shall be lawful for any officer, either generally or specially authorized by such Government in this behalf, and for his servants and workman,-
to enter upon and survey and take levels of any land in such locality; to dig or bore into the sub-soil;
to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether the land is adapted for such purpose;
to set out the boundaries of the land proposed to be taken and the intended line of the work (if any) proposed to be made thereon;
to mark such levels, boundaries and line by placing marks and cutting trenches; and, where otherwise the survey cannot be completed and the levels taken and the boundaries and line marked, to cut down and clear away any part of any standing crop, fence or jungle;
Provided that no person shall enter into any building or upon any enclosed court or garden attached to a dwelling house (unless with the consent of the occupier thereof) without previously giving such occupier at least seven days' notice in writing of his intention to do so."
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:22:47 :::HCHP 18Section 5A of the 1894 Act, reads thus:
"5A. Hearing of objections. - (1) Any person interested in any land .
which has been notified under section 4, sub-section (1), as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a Company may, [within thirty days from the date of the publication of the notification], object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be.
(2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard [in person or by any person authorized by him in this behalf] or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, [either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under section 4, sub-section (1), or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the appropriate Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of that Government]. The decision of the [appropriate Government] on the objections shall be final.
(3) For the purpose of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land were acquired under this Act.] Section 6 of the 1894 Act, reads thus:
"6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose. - (1) Subject to the provision of Part VII of this Act, [appropriate Government] is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under section 5A, sub-section (2)], that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a Company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorized to certify its orders [and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (I) irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required) under section 5A, sub- section (2)];
[Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under section 4, sub-section (1)-
(i) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (1 of 1967), but before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (68 of 1984), shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of the publication of the notification; or
(ii) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (68 of 1984), shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification:] Provided further that] no such declaration shall be made unless the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid by a Company, or wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:22:47 :::HCHP 19
[Explanation 1. - In computing any of the periods referred to in the first proviso, the period during which any action or proceeding to be .
taken in pursuance of the notification issued under section 4, sub-
section (1), is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded.
Explanation 2. - Where the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid out of the funds of a corporation owned or controlled by the State, such compensation shall be deemed to be compensation paid out of public revenues.] (2) [Every declaration] shall be published in the Official Gazette [and in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is situated of which at least one shall be in the regional language, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at convenient places in the said locality (the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the declaration), and such declaration shall state] the district or other territorial division in which the land is situate, the purpose for which It is needed, its approximate area, and, where a plan shall have been made of the land, the place where such plan may be inspected.
(3) The said declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose or for a company, as the case may be;
and, after making such declaration, the [appropriate Government] may acquire the land in manner hereinafter appearing."
Sections 39, 40 and 41 of the 1894 Act reads thus:
"39. Previous consent of appropriate Government and execution of agreement necessary. - The provisions of [sections 6 to 16 (both inclusive) and sections 18 to 37 (both inclusive)] shall not be put in force in order to acquire land for any company [under this Part], unless with the previous consent of the [appropriate Government], not unless the Company shall have executed the agreement hereinafter mentioned.
40. Previous enquiry. - (1) Such consent shall not be given unless the [appropriate Government] be satisfied. [either on the report of the Collector under section 5A, sub-section (2), or] by an enquiry held as hereinafter provided, -
[(a) that the purpose of the acquisition is to obtain land for the erection of dwelling houses for workmen employed by the Company or for the provision of amenities directly connected therewith, or [(aa) that such acquisition is needed for the construction of some building or work for a Company which is engaged or is taking steps for engaging itself in any industry or work which is for a public purpose, or]
(b) that such acquisition is needed for the construction of some work, and that such work is likely to prove useful to the public].
(2) Such enquiry shall be held by such officer and at such time and place as the [appropriate Government] shall appoint.
(3) Such officer may summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses and compel the production of documents by the same means and, as far as possible, in the same manner as is provided by ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:22:47 :::HCHP 20 the [Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)] in the case of a Civil Court."
.
41. Agreement with appropriate Government. - If the [appropriate Government] is satisfied [after considering the report, if any, of the Collector under section 5A, sub-section (2), or on the report of the officer making an inquiry under section 40] that [the proposed acquisition is for any of the purposes referred to in clause
(a) or clause (aa) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 40], it shall require the Company to enter into an agreement [with the [appropriate Government]], providing to the satisfaction of the [appropriate Government] for the following matters, namely :-
(1) the - [payment to the [appropriate Government]] of the cost of the acquisition;
(2) the transfer, on such payment, of the land to the Company.
(3) the terms on which the land shall be held by the Company, [(4) where the acquisition is for the purpose of erecting dwelling houses or the provision of amenities connected therewith, the time within which, the conditions on which and the manner in which the dwelling houses or amenities shall be erected or provided;
[(4A) where the acquisition is for the construction of any building or work for a Company which is engaged or is taking steps for engaging itself in any industry or work which is for a public purpose, the time within which, and the conditions on which, the building or work shall be constructed or executed; and] (5) where the acquisition is for the construction of any other work, the time within which and the conditions on which the work shall be executed and maintained and the terms on which the public shall be entitled to use the work.]"
Section 19 (7) of the 2013 Act reads thus:
"19. Publication of declaration and summary of Rehabilitation and Resettlement. - (1) when the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under sub-section (2) of Section 15, that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, a declaration shall be made to that effect, alongwith a declaration of an area identified as the "resettlement area" for the purposes of rehabilitation and resettlement of the affected families, under the hand and seal of a Secretary to such Government or of any other officer duly authorized to certify its orders and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same preliminary notification irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required).
(2) to (6). xxx xxx xxx (7) Where no declaration is made under sub-section (1) within twelve months from the date of preliminary notification, then such notification shall be deemed to have been rescinded:
Provided that in computing the period referred to in this sub- section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any Court shall be excluded:::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:22:47 :::HCHP 21
Provided further that the appropriate Government shall have the power to extend the period of twelve months, if in its opinion circumstances exist justifying the same:
.
Provided also that any such decision to extend the period shall be recorded in writing and the same shall be notified and be uploaded on the website of the authority concerned."
Section 24 of the 2013 Act reads thus:
"24. Land acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), -
(a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or
(b) where an award under said section 11 has been made, then r such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:
Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act."
Section 114 of the 2013 Act, reads thus:
"114. Repeal and saving.- (1) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) is hereby repealed.
(2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act the repeal under sub-
section (1) shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) with regard to the effect of repeals."
Rule 4 of 1963 Rules reads thus:
"4. Appropriate Government to be satisfied with regard to certain matters before initiating acquisition proceedings.- (1) Whenever a Company makes an application to the appropriate Government for acquisition of any land, that Government shall direct the collector to submit a report to it on the following matters, namely:
(i) that the company has made its best endeavour to find out lands in the locality suitable for the purpose of acquisition;::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:22:47 :::HCHP 22
(ii) that the company has made all reasonable efforts to get such lands by negotiation with the persons interested therein on payment of reasonable price and such efforts have failed;
.
(iii) that the land proposed to be acquired is suitable for the purpose;
(iv) that the area of land proposed to be acquired is not excessive;
(v) that the company is in a position to utilize the land expeditiously; and
(vi) where the land proposed to be acquired is good agricultural hand, that no alternative suitable site can be found so as to avoid acquisition of that land.
(2) The collector shall, after giving the company a reasonable opportunity, to make any representation in this behalf, hold an enquiry into the matters referred to in sub-rule (1) and while holding such enquiry he shall:
(i) in any case where the land proposed to be acquired is r agricultural land, consult the Senior Agricultural Officer of the district whether or not such land is good agricultural land;
(ii) determine, having regard to the provisions of sections 23 and 24 of the Act, the approximate amount of compensation likely to be payable in respect of the land, which, in the opinion of the Collector, should be acquired for the Company; and
(iii) ascertain whether the company offered a reasonable price (not being less than the compensation so determined), to the persons interested in the land proposed to be acquired.
Explanation.- For the purpose of this rule "good agricultural land"
means any land which, considering level of agricultural production and the crop pattern of the area in which it is situated, is of average or above average productivity and includes a garden or grove land.
(3) As soon as may be after holding the enquiry under sub-rule (2) the collector shall submit a report to the appropriate Government and a copy of the same shall be forwarded by that Government to the Committee.
(4) No declaration shall be made by the appropriate Government under section 6 of Act unless -
(i) the appropriate Government has consulted the committee and has considered the report submitted under this rule and the report, if any, submitted under section 5-A of the Act; and
(ii) the agreement under section 41 of the Act has been executed by the company."
42. The only justification sought to be put forward by the respondents for directing the initiation of fresh proceedings under 2013 Act is that one year period had lapsed from the date of issuance of Section 4 notification dated 25.4.2013. But then, the respondents appear to have misinterpreted the provisions of Section 6 of the Act.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:22:47 :::HCHP 23The very opening sentence wherein makes it clear that the said .
Section 6 alongwith all provisos is subject to Part VII of the 1894 Act, as amended by Act 68 of 1984.
43. Part VII of the 1894 Act deals specifically with the acquisition of land for companies. Section 39 of the Act provides that when land is to be acquired under Part VII, i.e. for a company, then Section 6 of the Act will not be "put in force" unless two conditions are fulfilled:
(i) r There must be a previous consent of the appropriate Government that land be acquired for a company;
and
(ii) The Company shall have executed an agreement as provided under Section 41 of the 1894 Act.
44. As per Section 40 of the Act, the appropriate Government can give such consent (required under Section 39) only after an enquiry is held, either under Section 5A or under Section 40 of the Act.
Since the enquiry in the present case had already been held under Section 5A, therefore, no further enquiry as envisaged under Section 40 of the Act was necessary. Moreover, once the Government was satisfied with the report of the Collector under Section 5A of the Act, then it was required to ask the Company to enter into an agreement with the appropriate Government in terms of Section 41 of the Act providing for various matters including payment of the cost of acquisition specified therein.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:22:47 :::HCHP 2445. This was so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babu .
Barkya Thakur vs. State of Bombay and others (1961) 1 SCR 128 in the following terms:
"9. From the preamble as also from the provisions of Sections 5A, 6 and 7, it is obvious that the Act makes a clear distinction between acquisition of land needed for a public purpose and that for a Company, as if land needed for a Company is not also for a public purpose. The Act has gone further and has devoted Part VII to acquisition of land for Companies and in sub-s. (2) s. of 38, with which Part VII begins, provides that in the case of an acquisition for a Company, for the words " for such purpose " the words " for purposes of the Company " shall be deemed to have been substituted. It has been laid down by s. 39 that the machinery of the Land Acquisition Act, beginning with s. 6 and ending with s. 37, shall not be put into operation unless two conditions precedent are fulfilled, namely, (1) the previous consent of the appropriate Government has been obtained and (2) an agreement in terms of s. 41 has been executed by the Company.
10. The condition precedent to the giving of consent aforesaid by the appropriate Government is that the Government has to be satisfied on the report of the enquiry envisaged by s. 5A(2) or by enquiry held under s. 40 itself that the purpose of the acquisition is ;to obtain land for the erection of dwelling house-, for workmen employed by the Company or for the provision of amenities directly connected therewith or that such acquisition is needed for the construction of some work which is likely to prove useful to the public. When the Government is satisfied as to the purposes aforesaid of the acquisition in question, the appropriate Government shall require the Company to enter into an agreement providing for the payment to the Government (1) of the cost of the acquisition, (2) on such payment, the transfer of the land to the Company and (3) the terms on which the land shall be held by the Company. The agreement has also to make provision for the time within which the conditions on which and the manner in which the dwelling houses or amenities shall be erected or provided and in the case of a construction of any other kind of work the time within which and the conditions on which the work shall be executed and maintained and the terms on which the public shall be entitled to use the work.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:22:47 :::HCHP 25
46. In view of the aforesaid exposition of law, it can safely be .
held that it was only after the statutory requirement under Sections 39, 40 and 41 of Part VII of the 1894 Act are fulfilled that the legal prohibition to "put in force' inter alia Section 6 of the 1894 Act is lifted.
In other words, any provision of Section 6 including its provisos will not come into operation till the stipulated requirements of Part VII are fulfilled.
47. Further, the combined reading of proviso (1) of Section 6 (1) and Sections 39, 40 and 41 of Part VII of the 1894 Act, leads to the following inescapable conclusions:
Where acquisition is for a company, proviso (1) of Section 6 (1) of the 1894 Act will not operate. The statute has to be read down and the relevant provisions of Part VII will override proviso (1) of Section 6 (1) and in this process the time spent for fulfilling the legal requirements will have to be excluded in computing the limitation period of one year indicated in proviso (1) (ii) of Section 6 (1) of the 1894 Act.
This will be in accordance with the principles clearly accepted in accordance with Explanation (1) to the second proviso of Section 6 (1) of the Act which provides that the period spent in legal proceedings shall be excluded from the limitation period indicated in the first proviso to Section 6 (1) of the Act. The first proviso to Section 6 stipulates that declaration should be made within one year of notification issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
Whereas, second proviso, which qualifies and modifies the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:22:47 :::HCHP 26 first proviso, inter alia mandates that no declaration shall .
be made under Section 6 of the Act unless compensation is to be paid by the company. The obligation of the company to pay compensation is undertaken by the Company only after an agreement is signed with the appropriate Government in terms of Section 41 of the Act.
Therefore, the limitation of one year will come into operation only after the proceedings under Sections 39, 40 and 41 of the Act are complete.
48. It is basic rule of interpretation that there has to be a harmonious construction between different sections of the Act so that reading of one section of the statute does not render otiose another section of the same statute. From the harmonious construction of Section 6 and Sections 39, 40 and 41 of the Act, it can safely be concluded that proviso 1 (ii) to Section 6 (1) of the 1894 Act would be excluded in case of acquisition of land for a company. If in case these provisions are construed in the manner aforesaid, Sections 39 to 41 of Part VII of the Act to which Section 6 has been made subject to as is clear from the opening words of Section 6 itself would be rendered otiose. Once the applicability of proviso 1 (ii) of Section 6 of the 1894 Act is excluded, then the applicability of period of limitation of one year is excluded.
49. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat and others (1998) 4 SCC 387 has clearly held that declaration under Section 6 of the Act is made by the notification only after formalities under Part VII of the Act which contains Sections 39 to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:22:47 :::HCHP 27 42 have been complied and the report of the Collector under Section .
5-A (2) of the Act is before the State Government, who consents to acquire the land on its satisfaction that it is needed for the company.
The relevant observations read thus:
"31.......... After notification under Section 4 is issued, when it appears to the State Government that the land in any locality is needed for a company, any person interested in such land which has been notified can file objections under Section 5-A (1) of the Act. Such objections are to be made to the Collector in writing and who after giving the objector an opportunity of being heard and after hearing of such objections and after making such further enquiry, if any, as the Collector thinks necessary, is to make a report to the State Government for its decision. Then the decision of the State Government on the objections is final. Before the applicability of other provisions in the process of acquisition, in the case of a company, previous consent of the State Government is required under Section 39 of the Act nor (sic) unless the company shall have executed the agreement as provided in Section 41 of the Act. Before giving such consent, Section 40 contemplates a previous enquiry. Then compliance with Rules 3 and 4 of the Land Acquisition (Company) Rules, 1963 is mandatorily required. After the stage of Sections 40 and 41 is reached, the agreement so entered into by the company with the State Government is to be published in the Official Gazette. This is Section 42 of the Act which provides that the agreement on its publication would have the same effect as if it had formed part of the Act. After having done all this, the State Government cannot unilaterally and without notice to the company withdraw from acquisition. Opportunity has to be given to the company to show cause against the proposed action of the State Government to withdraw from acquisition. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act is made by notification only after formalities under Part VII of the Act which contains Sections 39 to 42 have been complied and the report of the Collector under Section 5-A (2) of the Act is before the State Government, who consents to acquire the land on its satisfaction that it is needed for the company."
50. Now, insofar as the 2013 Act is concerned, it addresses the issues which are more equitable and realistic. Section 93 of the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:22:47 :::HCHP 28 2013 Act states that completion of acquisition is not necessary, but in .
that case, complete and fair compensation has to be awarded to the land owners. Even the rigors of limitation as set forth in proviso 1 (ii) of Section 6 (1) of the Act have been relaxed under the 2013 Act inasmuch as the second proviso to Section 19 (7) thereof clearly provides for and vests with the respondents the power to extend one year period for making a declaration of purpose in circumstances that justify such an extension.
51. We have no hesitation to hold that the respondents have failed to appreciate that the intent expressed under Section 19 (7) read with Section 24 (1) (a) of the 2013 Act has to be construed so as to facilitate the acquisition of land for projects of general public interest in a timely and transparent manner. The respondents rather than working in accordance with the stated object of the 2013 Act and by reversing the clock back by relegating the petitioner's case to be started de novo under the 2013 Act, have only delayed the acquisition proceedings for the project and resultantly even the implementation, construction and operation of the project has been delayed.
52. Therefore, in the given circumstances, we are of the considered view that instead of directing the initiation of fresh acquisition proceedings the respondents ought to have extended the benefit of second proviso to Section 19 (7) of the 2013 Act. They ought to have taken into consideration the express provision of Section 24 (1)
(a) of the 2013 Act which extended the benefit of compensation as envisaged under the 2013 Act to the land owners for the proceedings which had been initiated under the 1894 Act.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:22:47 :::HCHP 2953. In addition to the above, it has come on record that the .
petitioner's has so far already invested a huge amount of `1,02,88,61,000/- (Rupees One Billion two Million Eighty Eight Lacs, Sixty One Thousand only) towards the project execution and implementation and has committed additional funds to the tune `2,96,26,88,000/- (Two Billion Ninety Six Million Twenty Six Lacs Eighty Eight Thousand only) towards project allotment costs, identification, marking, preparation etc. of forest land, additional bank guarantees and preparation and approval of CAT plan. Therefore, the initiation of fresh acquisition proceedings at this stage would only entail further expenditure thereby causing further loss to the petitioner.
54. Now, we proceed to deal with the contention of learned Advocate General that once the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had lapsed prior to the Act being repealed and the new Act having come to force only on 1.1.2014, then in such a situation, the State Government had no option but to proceed afresh acquisition proceedings under the new Act.
55. We have considered this submission and are of the considered opinion that the respondents have clearly misdirected themselves in arriving at the decision that the proceedings for acquisition of land had lapsed. Sections 114 (2) and 24 (1) (a) of the 2013 Act have to be read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The Section 4 notification issued under the 1894 Act was valid and subsisting at the time of coming into force of the 2013 Act, that being so, the benefit of second proviso to Section 19 (7) of the 2013 Act had to be invoked and applied to the facts of the present case.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:22:47 :::HCHP 30Moreover, had the respondents acted with the sense of responsibility .
by ensuring that there was no inordinate delay, probably such a situation may not have arisen. The respondents have been procrastinating the taking of action under the 1894 Act in a swift, timely and apposite manner. In addition, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the default in discharge of statutory duties by the respondents and in no event can the same work to its prejudice as that would amount to allowing the respondents to take undue advantage of their own fault in failing to act promptly in accordance with law.
56. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed, impugned letter No. MPP-Chh (5)-5/2012 dated 5.8.2014 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No.1 and the impugned opinion of respondent No.2 relied upon and mentioned extensively in the impugned letter are quashed. Since the 2013 Act is more equitable and realistic, more especially to the claimants whose lands have been sought to be acquired, we direct the respondents to proceed with the present case under the second proviso to Section 19 (7) of the 2013 Act and extend the time for issuance of a notification for declaration of purpose and the respondents are further directed to continue with the notification No. Vidyut-CH: (5)-5/2012 dated 25.4.2013 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Pending application also stands disposed of. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
( Mansoor Ahmad Mir)
Chief Justice
June 17, 2015 (Tarlok Singh Chauhan),
(GR) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:22:47 :::HCHP