In this writ petition challenging land acquisition proceedings, the petitioner alleged threats and lack of compensation. The court noted that compensation would be provided per the Land Acquisition Act if land is notified. The petition was disposed of as there was no further relief to grant on the stated facts.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.3750 of 2012.
Date of decision: 18.09.2017.
Agya Nand .….Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others …..Respondents.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the Petitioner : Mr.Anupinder Rohal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Neeraj K.Sharma, Dy. A.G. with Mr.J.S.Guleria, Asstt. A.G.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral).
Heard. The averments made on affidavit by the 2nd respondent, Superintending Engineer, 11th Circle, HPPWD, Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, read thus:-
“4.That in reply to this para, it is submitted that the respondents never threatened the petitioner in any manner as averred in this para to occupy the land of the petitioner without due process of law and without the payment of amount of compensation. It is submitted that the Commissioner-cum-Secretary (PWD) to Govt. of H.P. issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act vide notification No.P.B.W-BA(7)1-/1/98 on dated 02.01.1999 where in the land proposed to be acquired for the construction of road known as Rai-Bahli-Khuni-Panoli-Kharahan was indicated with Khasra No. and its area. The objections from the interest holders were also invited. The land of the petitioner comprising Khasra No. 662 was also proposed to be acquired. It is further submitted that the HP Govt. thereafter notified land under Section 7 of the Land Acquisition Act on 5-11-1999 and thereafter notice
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2
under Section 9 of Land Acquisition Act were also issued to the interest holders including the petitioner.
7. That in reply to para 7 of the petition it is submitted that replying respondents have again started the process of acquisition of land on 22-07-2006 and the same is pending before Secretary (PWD) to the Govt. of HP and the notification is likely to be published, hence the contents of this para are denied.
8. That in reply to the contents of para 8, it is submitted that Notification under Section-4 of the Land Acquisition Act issued on dated 26.10.2004 has lapsed. The Revenue papers of Section-4 to acquire the land of petitioner has again been prepared and sent to the Govt. of H.P. for its fresh notification. However, it is wrong to allege that the Khasra No.662 pertaining to the land of petitioner has not been included in these revenue papers. As such the contents being contrary to factual position are as such wrong hence denied.”
( Tarlok Singh Chauhan), 18th September, 2017. Judge. (krt )
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the allegation of land threat and acquisition without due process is tenable.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief in the pending land acquisition proceedings.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Agya Nand
State of Himachal Pradesh
Tarlok Singh Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
