Allowed

Arud Singh v. State of Hp and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC12 Jun 2024CWP/2886/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed a writ petition against the dismissal of objections to a land acquisition award. The court quashed the rejection order dated 05.09.2020, held that the objections were within limitation, and directed the authority to consider them.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 05.09.2020 quashed; authority directed to reconsider petitioner's objections; costs awarded.

Arud Singh Vs State of Hp and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.2886 of 2021 Decided on: 12^th June, 2024

¶3

_________________________________________________________________ Arud Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________

¶4

Coram

¶5

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶6

1 Whether approved for reporting? ____________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Arush Matlotia Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Mr. Dalip K. Sharma and Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocates General.

¶7

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶8

CMP No. 7897 of 2024

¶9

Allowed and disposed of.

¶10

CWP No. 2886 of 2021

¶11

2. With the consent of parties, the matter is heard at

¶12

this stage.

¶13

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

¶14

¶15

3. Petitioner’s objections against the award No. 225 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer (NZ), H.P. Public Works Department (HPPWD), Kangra, were dismissed by respondent No.2 on 05.09.2020. The order dated 05.09.2020 (Annexure P-6) was communicated to the petitioner vide office letter dated 21.09.2020 (Annexure P-7). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

¶16

4. Heard learned counsel on both sides and considered the case record.

¶17

5. Petitioner’s objections against award No.225 dated 11.06.2020 have been rejected by respondent No.2 only on the ground that the objections were received on 27.07.2020, whereas the award was passed 11.06.2020. The objections, therefore, were taken as time barred and, accordingly held not maintainable.

¶18

5(i). It is not in dispute that in Suo Motu Writ

¶19

Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 ( In Re: Cognizance For

¶20

Extension Of Limitation), Hon’ble Apex Court had suspended limitation period by passing various orders from time to time. The impugned order has been passed in ignorance of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In

¶21

¶22

fact, for the same reason, CWP No. 2951 of 2021 (Karam Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Ors) was allowed by this Court on 17.08.2021 and a similar order passed by respondent No.2, dismissing the objections filed against the land acquisition award on the ground of limitation, had been quashed.

¶23

5(ii). The above position has been fairly admitted by respondents No.1 and 3 in their reply filed to the writ petition, more particularly, in para-2 of the preliminary objections.

¶24

Consequently, this writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs.1000/- to be paid to the petitioner. Order dated 05.09.2020 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Land Acquisition Officer (NZ), HPPWD Kangra, is quashed and set aside. The Land Acquisition Officer is directed to consider the objections of the petitioner that have been filed within limitation period and, thereafter, consider the same in accordance with law. The parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the Land Acquisition Officer (NZ), HPPWD Kangra, on 04.07.2027, when costs shall be also paid to the petitioner.

¶25

¶26

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also

¶27

to stand disposed of.

¶28

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶29

June 12, 2024

¶30

R.Atal