Allowed

Amrit Lal and Another v. NHAI and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC17 Sept 2024CWP/4217/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought release of land acquisition compensation withheld by the Competent Authority. The Court ruled that a revenue dispute concerning a co-owner's share did not justify withholding compensation for the petitioners' shares, directing payment with interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Release of compensation amount applicable to petitioners with interest at 7% per annum from date of deposit by NHAI till upload on Bhumi Rashi Portal.

Amrit Lal and Another Vs NHAI and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

2024:HHC:9207

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 4217 of 2023 Decided on: 17^th September, 2024 _________________________________________________________________ Amrit Lal and Anr. ....Petitioners Versus National Highways Authority of India & Anr. …Respondents

¶4

Coram

¶5

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua,

¶6

lWhether approved for r _______________________	eportin ______	g? Ye ______	s _________________________
For the petitioners:	Mr. with Adv	J.L. M ocate.	Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate r. Sanjay Bhardwaj,
For the respondents:	Ms. resp	Shre onden	ya Chahan, Advocate for t No.1.
	Mr. with Adv No.2	Anup Mr. ocate .	Rattan, Advocate General L.N.Sharma, Additional General for respondent

¶7

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶8

Petitioners’ complaint in this writ petition is that

¶9

they have not been released compensation amount in terms

¶10

of the award passed in their favour in lieu of acquisition of

¶11

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

2024:HHC:9207

their land.

2. Facts of the case are that: -

¶16

2(i) Sh. Sukh Dev Singh was father of the petitioners. He was co-owner in possession of 1/3^rd share in the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 127 and 154 measuring 02-07-00 and 10-13-00 bighas, respectively situated at Mohal Nalka, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan, H.P.

¶17

Apart from Sukh Dev Singh, S/ Sh. Narata Ram and Rakesh Jain also had 1/3^rd share each in the above land. A part of the land comprised in aforementioned Khasra Numbers i.e. land measuring 0-09-08 bighas in Khasra No. 154, denoted by Khasra No. 154/1 and measuring 0-00-14 bighas in Khasra No. 127 denoted by Khasra No.127/1, was acquired by the respondents for widening/four laning of Pinjore-Nalagah road near Bawania, in Tehsil Baddi, District Solan, H.P.

¶18

2(ii) In lieu of acquisition of the land comprised in Khasra No. 127/1 and 154/1, an award was passed by respondent No.2-the Competent Authority of Land Acquisition (CALA for short) on 22.03.2017. Compensation to the tune of Rs.23,85,162/-was determined as payable to the

¶19

2024:HHC:9207

¶20

¶21

owners of Khasra Nos. 127/1 and 154/1. The beneficiary of acquisition i.e. the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI for short) deposited the compensation amount with respondent No.2 on 20.04.2017.

¶22

2(iii) Sh. Sukh Dev Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, died on 31.12.2019. Compensation for his acquired land was not paid to him. One other co-owner Narata Ram also died after passing of the award.

¶23

2(iv) At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that in respect of 1/3^rd share in the afore-described land, owned by Sh. Rakesh Jain, proceedings under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (the Act in short) were initiated before the District Collector, Solan on 03.01.2009. The District Collector Solan vide his order dated 16.06.2016, inter-alia , held that 1/2 share (sic 1/3^rd share) of Sh. Rakesh Jain, in Khasra No. 154 shall vest in State of Himachal Pradesh. The aforesaid order passed by the District Collector Solan was assailed before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla by Sh. Rakesh Jain by preferring Revenue Appeal No. 658/2016.

¶24

During the course of hearing of this petition,

¶25

2024:HHC:9207

¶26

¶27

learned Advocate General produced the record of the aforesaid appeal pending before the Divisional Commissioner. A perusal of the record reflects that vide order dated 03.10.2016, the impugned order passed by the District Collector, Solan on 16.06.2016 was stayed till the next date of hearing. The stay order was continued from time to time under different orders till the onset of COVID-19 pandemic when the matter could not be taken up. The appeal is stated to be still pending adjudication.

¶28

2(v) Petitioners-sons of late Sh. Sukh Dev Singh succeeded to his estate. They were not paid compensation of their acquired land in terms of the award passed on 22.03.2017. It is the case of the petitioners that despite several requests made on their behalf both oral and in writing, amount of compensation was not released to them by respondent No.2. Petitioners have placed on record representations dated 20.06.2022 and 30.10.2023, addressed to respondent No.2- the Sub Divisional Officer (C) Nalagarh, District Solan-cum-Competent Authority Land Acquisition, seeking release of compensation amount in accordance with the award. In the aforesaid representations, the petitioners

¶29

2024:HHC:9207

¶30

¶31

had, inter-alia , also informed that compensation amount due under the award to deceased Sh. Narata Ram, one of the co-

¶32

owners, had been released in favour of his legal heirs, however, the petitioners were being deprived of the due compensation in lieu of acquisition of their land.

¶33

A legal notice has also been placed on record, issued at the behest of the petitioners to respondent No.2 on 19.04.2023, calling upon the said authority to release the amount to the extent of 1/3 share in equal shares in favour of the two petitioners, giving the factual details of the case.

¶34

It is in the aforesaid background, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition, seeking release of the compensation amount in terms of the award passed in their favour. The substantive relief prayed for by the petitioners is as under: -

¶35

“i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing respondent No.2 to release the compensation amount as per the Award dated 22.03.2017 passed by him vide Annexure P-1 qua Khasra number 154/1 to the petitioners as per their shares in the land alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of passing the award i.e. 22.03.2017 till actual payment to the petitioners;

¶36

ii) That respondent No.2 may also be directed to pay

¶37

2024:HHC:9207

¶38

¶39

compensation of Rs. One Lac to the petitioners for causing mental agony, harassment and torture to them for not releasing the amount of compensation qua Kahsra number 154/1 falling to their shares and besides this, respondent No.2 may also be burdened with exemplary costs for this unwarranted litigation.”

¶40

3. Submissions

¶41

3(i) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners

¶42

submitted that there was absolutely no reason for respondent No.2 to withhold the compensation amount due and admissible to the petitioners under the award dated 22.03.2017. The petitioners being successors-in-interest of

¶43

Sh. Sukh Dev Singh, were entitled to 1/3^rd share held by Sh. Sukh Dev Singh in Khasra Nos. 154/1 and 127/1, acquired by the respondents for the construction/widening of the road. There was no dispute pending in any Court of law on anywhere else regarding the share of Sh. Sukh Dev Singh in the acquired land. The dispute, if any, was in respect of 1/3^rd share of Sh. Rakesh Jain in the acquired land. However, share of Sh. Rakesh Jain and the dispute pertaining to his share has nothing to do with the entitlement of Sh. Sukh Dev Singh or of the petitioners as legal heirs of Sh. Sukh Dev Singh to the compensation amount in terms of

2024:HHC:9207

the award.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also pointed out that petitioners’ names had figured in revenue record i.e. in the relevant jamabandi as successors of Sh. Sukh Dev Singh pursuant to his death on 31.12.2019. Despite this, the amount of compensation was not released in favour of the petitioners. It was also submitted that one of the co-owners of the subject land i.e. Sh. Narata Ram, had died after passing of the award. The Competent Authority Land Acquisition-respondent No.2 had released the compensation amount due to Sh. Narata Ram, in favour of his legal heirs, however, the petitioners were discriminated. They were not released compensation amount in terms of the award. Prayer was made that the compensation amount be directed to be released at 12% interest per annum from the date of passing of the award till its realization. Learned Senior Counsel also strenuously urged for directing respondent No.2 to pay exemplary costs for denying the compensation to the petitioners. In support of this submission reliance was placed upon Younis @ Unees Vs.

¶48

2024:HHC:9207

¶49

¶50

Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr.¹

¶51

In the aforesaid case, the amount determined by

¶52

the competent authority was not acceptable to the NHAI. The Competent Authority did not release the payment to the petitioner-landowner (therein). The NHAI invoked its right to seek determination of the amount payable as compensation by the Arbitrator by making an application under Section 3G (5) of the National Highways Act. One of the contentions urged by the landowner was that the Competent Authority had no jurisdiction to refuse payment of compensation after passing the award.

¶53

The questions before the Court were: -

¶54

“28. The questions that are, therefore, required to be considered in this writ petition are as follows:

¶55

(i) Whether the Competent Authority possess the jurisdiction to refuse payment of compensation awarded to the land-loser?

¶56

(ii) Whether the Competent Authority can seek for the opinion of the Executing Agency for disbursal of the compensation and refuse payment based on the opinion of the Executing Agency?”

¶57

The Court held as under: -

¶58

“46. The intent of the statutory rule is that irrespective of whether the amount was determined by the Competent Authority as compensation payable to the land loser or the amount was determined by the Arbitrator, that

¶59

1 Writ Petition No.104106/2022 (LA-RES) decided by High Court of Karnataka on 6.01.2023.

¶60

2024:HHC:9207

¶61

¶62

amount is required to be deposited by the Central Government before the Competent Authority in the manner laid down by Rules specified in that behalf. Once a statutory rule has been prescribed for the deposit of the amount determined, the beneficiary i.e., the NHAI is bound to comply with it and it has no right to withhold the deposit.

¶63

47. In fact, in both cases, the statutory provision also stipulates the amount deposited before the competent authority is required to be paid immediately on deposit to the person or persons entitled to it and the Competent authority is given no discretion in the matter of payment of compensation.

¶64

48. It should be borne in mind that possession of the land is permitted to be taken under Section 3E (1), only after the amount determined as compensation has been deposited as provided under Section 3H(1).

¶65

49. Thus, the requirement of depositing the amount determined as compensation and its disbursal to the person concerned is statutorily provided and would thus have to be followed scrupulously and no deviation from the Rules would be permissible.

¶66

50 to 54……………………………………….

¶67

55. It may be pertinent to notice here that the NHAI has not been given the option to withhold the deposit, if it is contemplating a challenge to the amount determined either by the Competent Authority or by the Arbitrator and the NHAI is simply required to deposit the compensation determined within 7 days by way of a Demand Draft.

¶68

56.

¶69

57. It is thus clear from the statutory scheme, the amount determined as compensation by the competent authority is not only to be deposited within 7 days before the

¶70

2024:HHC:9207

¶71

10 -

¶72

competent authority but is also required to be disbursed immediately thereafter to the landowner.

¶73

58. The intent behind this prescription of deposit within 7 days and payment immediately thereafter in explicit terms is rather clear. The Legislature was conscious of the fact that the acquisition of land was always a tedious and time-consuming process and to speed up this process, the Act provided for vesting of the land immediately after the declaration was made.

¶74

59 to 97…………………………………………

¶75

98. As a consequence, the argument of NHAI that it had the option of withholding the compensation since it had decided to challenge the award passed by the Arbitrator is without any merit and deserves to be rejected.

¶76

99 to 106……………………………………….

¶77

107. The NHAI has, on the other hand, contended that it had a right not to release the payment since the applications filed under the A & C act were still pending adjudication. This is clearly impermissible for the reasons enumerated above.

¶78

108. In this view of the matter, it is hereby held that the Competent Authority does not possess the jurisdiction to refuse payment of compensation awarded to the landloser and the Competent Authority cannot also seek for the opinion of the Executing Agency for disbursal of the compensation and refuse payment based on the opinion of the Executing Agency.

¶79

109&110……………………………………………...

¶80

111. Since the NHAI has withheld the compensation payable to the landowner, it would have to necessarily be liable to pay interest on the compensation which became payable from 12.02.2011 till the date of payment. Since Section 3H(5) of the Act prescribes interest at 9% per annum on the excess amount awarded by the

¶81

2024:HHC:9207

¶82

11 -

¶83

Arbitrator, in my view, it would be just and proper to direct NHAI to pay interest at 9% per annum on the compensation amount determined by the Competent Authority from 12.02.2011 i.e., the date which it became payable till the date of payment.”

¶84

3(ii). Learned counsel for respondent No.1-the NHAI

¶85

canvassed its pleaded stance in reply that the compensation awarded in terms of the award No.8 of 22.03.2017 was deposited by it with respondent No.2-the Competent Authority Land Acquisition Nalagarh on 20.04.2017; It is not responsible for the action of respondent No.2 in not releasing the same to the rightful landowners.

¶86

3(iii). Respondent No.2, the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-

¶87

Competent Authority Land Acquisition, in its reply filed on 07.11.2023 has taken the stand that: -

¶88

 Khasra Number 154 was involved in the vestment order passed by the District Collector Solan on 16.06.2016.

¶89

 Rapat No. 563 dated 15.07.2017 made by the Patwari on jamabandi for the year 2015-16, reflected that the order passed by the District Collector Solan on 16.06.2016 had been stayed by

¶90

the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla.

¶91

2024:HHC:9207

¶92

12 -

¶93

The said jamabandi alongwith rapat No.563 clearly made out that stay was operating over the entire land comprised in Khasra No. 154 and not limited to a specific share.

¶94

Compensation for Khasra No.127/1 had been paid to all the rightful owners, however, compensation for Khasra No. 154 had been withheld due to stay order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla.

¶95

For the above given reasons, non-release of compensation amount in favour of the petitioners was sought to be justified by respondent No.2.

¶96

4. Consideration

¶97

4(i). Orders passed in the petition & subsequent

¶98

pleadings: -

¶99

4(i)(a). This writ petition was taken up for consideration on 22.07.2024, when learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners disputed the factual averments made in the reply of respondent No.2 and submitted that no interim order staying the disbursement of compensation amount to the petitioners, had been passed by the Divisional Commissioner.

¶100

2024:HHC:9207

¶101

13 -

¶102

Accordingly, following order was passed in the matter on 22.07.2024 directing the respondent No.2 to place on record the stay order said to have been passed by the Divisional Commissioner, restraining the release of compensation amount in favour of the petitioners: -

¶103

“Perusal of reply filed by respondent No.2-Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Competent Authority, for Land Acquisition (CALA) Nalagarh, reveals that reason for not disbursing the compensation amount to the petitioners has been attributed to a stay order purportedly passed by the Divisional Commissioner with respect to Khasra No. 154.

¶104

2. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners disputes the above fact and submits that no interim order staying disbursement of the compensation amount to the petitioners has been passed by the Divisional Commissioner; In terms of the order passed by the District Collector Solan on 16.06.2016, it is only half share in Khasra No. 154 that is subject matter of the dispute under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972; The other remaining half share in this khasra number owned by the petitioners’ is neither the subject matter of the dispute under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, nor the disbursal of compensation in lieu of acquisition thereto has been stayed by the Divisional Commissioner.

¶105

3. The case file shows that repeated adjournments have been taken by the respondent-State to place on record the stay order purported to have been passed by the Divisional Commissioner. Same request is made even

¶106

2024:HHC:9207

¶107

14 -

¶108

today by the learned Deputy Advocate General. At her request, final opportunity of two days is granted, whereafter the matter shall be decided on the basis of the documents on record.

¶109

List on 25.07.2024.”

¶110

4(i)(b). Noticeably, similar orders had been passed in the matter on 28.12.2023, 02.01.2024 & 04.01.2024. On the next date of hearing i.e. 25.07.2024, learned Deputy Advocate General apprised that no stay order in the matter had been passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner. The order dated 25.07.2024 reads as under: -

¶111

“In sequel to the previous order passed in the matter dated 22.07.2024, learned Deputy Advocate General submits that there is no stay order in the matter passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner. Her statement is taken on record. Learned Deputy Advocate General further submits that the matter is to be addressed by the learned Advocate General, who is not in town today. At her request, list on 31.07.2024.”

¶112

4(i)(c). Pursuant to the subsequent orders passed in the matter, respondent No.2 filed his affidavit on 20.08.2024. The stand now taken in the affidavit is that:

¶113

 Reference to the stay order was made in the reply

¶114

on the basis of jamabandi furnished by the petitioners in the office of respondent No.2. The

¶115

2024:HHC:9207

¶116

15 -

¶117

jamabandi, the entries incorporated therein, were believed to be true by respondent No.2.

¶118

 Since, the jamabandi carried a note of the Patwari concerned that there was a stay order of the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla on the subject land comprised in Khasra No.154, respondent No.2 lawfully presuming the said to be true and correct, did not release the compensation in favour of the petitioners.

¶119

 Pursuant to the order dated 28.12.2023, passed in this writ petition, respondent No.2 directed Tehsildar Baddi, to report the basis for recording above entry in the jamabandi. Tehsildar Baddi on 02.01.2024 reported that no such orders of Divisional Commissioner were available either in his office or that of Patwari concerned. Respondent No.2 on 03.01.2024 requested the office of Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, to provide the aforesaid order. The same was provided and it was found that no such stay as mentioned in the rapat on Jamabandi had

¶120

2024:HHC:9207

¶121

16 -

¶122

actually been passed by the Divisional

¶123

Commissioner.

¶124

 Respondent No.2 on 28.06.2024, directed the Tehsildar Baddi to apprise about the action taken to address the situation. The reply sent by the Tehsildar on 23.,07.2024 did not reflect any action taken in the matter by him. Respondent No.2 on 25.07.2024, directed Tehsildar Baddi to take or recommend action against erring officials(s).

¶125

 Respondent No.2 also states in his affidavit that Naib Tehsildar Baddi vie office communication dated 29.07.2024 intimated about removal of erroneous entry in the Jamabandi vide rapatrojnamcha No.423 dated 27.07.2024. The affidavit

¶126

goes on to state that beneficiary details for payment of compensation amounting to Rs. 7,95,054/- have now been uploaded on Bhumi Rashi Portal for payment to petitioners.

¶127

4(ii). It is well settled that no one can be deprived of his property except with due process of law. Due process of law

¶128

not only means passing of the award in respect of the

¶129

2024:HHC:9207

¶130

17 -

¶131

property to be acquired by the respondents, but also encompass release of compensation amount for the property so acquired to the landowners.

¶132

4(ii)(a) It is not in dispute that Sh. Sukh Dev Singh and thereafter his sons- present petitioners were owners in possession of the subject land to the extent of 1/3^rd share in Khasra Nos. 127/1 and 154/1, acquired by respondent No.1 towards widening/ four laning of the road.

¶133

4(ii)(b) It is also not in dispute that under award No.8, passed on 22.03.2017, Sh. Sukh Dev Singh (father of the petitioners) was entitled to 1/3 share in the compensation amount assessed at Rs.23,85,162/- for acquisition of Khasra Nos 127/1 and 154/1.

¶134

4(ii)(c) It is not in dispute that after passing of the aforesaid award, Sh. Sukh Dev Singh died on 31.12.2019. Petitioners are the legal heirs of Sh. Sukh Dev Singh and entitled to receive 1/3^rd compensation in lieu of acquisition of land in question. The fact that names of the petitioners have

¶135

been entered in the revenue record in respect of the subject land is not in dispute.

¶136

4(ii)(d) It cannot be disputed that the petitioners were not

¶137

2024:HHC:9207

¶138

18 -

¶139

parties before the District Collector Solan in case No.1/13 of 2009. During hearing of the case, it has been admitted for respondent No.2 that the aforesaid case before the District Collector only pertained to 1/3^rd share of Sh. Rakesh Jain,

¶140

another co-owner of the land. It is not the case of respondents that share of the petitioners in Khasra Number in question was in any manner involved in the revenue case number 1/13 of 2009 or that there was any restraint order passed by the Competent Court or Authority against disbursing the compensation amount to the petitioners in terms of their entitlement i.e. 1/3^rd share in Khasra No. 154/1.

¶141

4(ii)(e) It is also matter of record that respondent No.1/ NHAI had deposited the compensation amount on 20.04.2017 pursuant to the award dated 22.03.2017.

¶142

4(ii)(f) Notwithstanding the above factual position, compensation amount was not disbursed to Sh. Sukh Dev Singh and also to his legal heirs thereafter. Sh. Sukh Dev Singh’s legal heirs i.e. present petitioners were compelled to move this Court, seeking release of the compensation amount

¶143

in terms of their entitlement. Reasons for not releasing the

¶144

2024:HHC:9207

¶145

19 -

¶146

compensation amount in favour of the petitioners as accorded by respondent No.2 may now be examined:-

¶147

(a) The first reason as put forth in the reply filed to the writ petition is that Khasra No. 154 was involved in the vestment order, passed by the District Collector Solan on 16.06.2016.

¶148

Had respondent No.2 cared to look into the order passed by the District Collector Solan, on 16.06.2016, it would have been apparent to him that dispute before the District Collector pertained to 1/3^rd share held by one Sh. Rakesh Jain in Khasra No.154. As already noticed, Khasra No.154 was co-owned by Sh. Sukh Dev Singh, Sh. Narata Ram and Sh. Rakesh Jain to the extent of 1/3^rd each. There was no dispute qua shares owned by Sh. Sukh Dev Singh and Sh. Narata Ram before the District Collector. The dispute before the District Collector only pertained to the share of Sh. Rakesh Jain in Khasra No.154. The decision in the aforesaid case by the District Collector, which had nothing to do with 1/3^rd share of the petitioners over Khasra No. 154, is a lame excuse put forth by respondent No. 2 for not disbursing compensation amount due to the petitioners.

¶149

2024:HHC:9207

¶150

20 -

¶151

(b) Yet one more point cited for not releasing the compensation amount in favour of Sh. Sukh Dev Singh/the petitioners is that the stay order passed by the Divisional Commissioner was in respect of entire land comprised in Khasra No. 154 and not on a specific share in it.

¶152

This stand taken in the reply is way off the remarks in rapat and goes overboard the interim order passed by the Divisional Commissioner. The dispute before the Revenue Authorities as noted above, pertained only to the share held by Sh. Rakesh Jain in Khasra No. 154. The vestment order passed by the District Collector, which of course was stayed by the Divisional Commissioner, only concerned the share of Sh. Rakesh Jain in Khasra No. 154. There was no dispute before the Revenue Authority qua entire Khasra No. 154.

¶153

(c) Another reason put forth by respondent No.2 is that the order passed by District Collector Solan on 16.06.2016 was stayed by the Divisional Commissioner; and this was evident from rapat No. 563 entered by the Patwari on 15.07.2017 in the jamabandi for the year 2015-16.

¶154

The above basis for not disbursing the

¶155

2024:HHC:9207

¶156

21 -

¶157

compensation amount to Sh. Sukh Dev Singh/petitioners’ father is factually incorrect. The District Collector vide order dated 16.06.2016 had ordered vestment of share of Sh. Rakesh Jain in Khasra No.154 with the State Government. This order had nothing to do with the share of Sh. Sukh Dev Singh/the petitioners over the subject land. Be that as it may. It remains a fact that the order passed by the District Collector Solan on 16.06.2016, ordering vestment of the subject land to the extent of share of Sh. Rakesh Jain in the State Government was also stayed by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla on 03.10.2016. Meaning thereby, that the order passed by the Collector had ceased to be in force or in other words, even the share of Sh. Rakesh Jain over Khasra No. 154 was not to vest in the State Government.

¶158

Reliance placed on rapat No.563 dated

¶159

15.07.2017, for not releasing the compensation amount in favour of the petitioners is wholly misplaced. This rapat was entered by the Patwari concerned. As per this rapat, Divisional Commissioner, Shimla vide order dated 15.07.2017, had stayed the transfer of the land measuring 10-13 bighas comprised in Khasra No. 154. This rapat

¶160

2024:HHC:9207

¶161

22 -

¶162

though does not convey the correct import of the stay order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, yet it no way gives the impression that there was any embargo in releasing the awarded amount to Sh. Sukh Dev Singh/petitioners.

¶163

(d) Even if rapat No.563, entered by the Patwari on 15.07.2017 is taken to be correct, then also there was no occasion for respondent No.2 to have stopped the release of compensation in favour of the petitioners. This rapat only conveyed that, the land was not to be transferred in view of order of the Divisional Commissioner. The rapat did not mention anything about the stay of disbursement of the compensation amount in favour of the petitioners under the lawfully passed award.

¶164

Even if the rapats entered in the jamabandi for the year 2015-16, are to be taken into consideration then also a note on the right-hand margin of the jamabandi makes it apparent that in terms of mutation No. 875, land ordered to be vested earlier had been further ordered to be divested and again restored back to its original owner i.e. Sh. Rakesh Jain. Respondent No.2 read something in the rapat which is not visible and on that basis (as per reply) stopped release of

¶165

2024:HHC:9207

¶166

23 -

¶167

compensation amount to Sh. Sukh Dev Singh/the petitioners.

¶168

(e) One more ground urged in the supplementary affidavit for not releasing the compensation amount in favour of the petitioners is that Section 45 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, estopped respondent No.2 from releasing the compensation amount in favour of the petitioners.

¶169

Section 45 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act pertains to the entries in the record of rights. It does not pertain to release of compensation amount in favour of the land owner under an award. In any case, there was no such entry in the jamabandi for withholding the compensation amount under the award.

¶170

(f) It is also a matter of record that respondent No.2 had ordered release of compensation amount in favour of legal heirs of Sh. Narata Ram. Sh. Narata Ram was of the coowners of Khasra No. 154, entitled to 1/3^rd share over it. Respondent No.2 had released the compensation amount in favour of legal heirs of Sh. Narata Ram, who had died after passing of the award. Despite this, the compensation amount had not been released in favour of the petitioners.

¶171

4(iii) Petitioners have placed on record their

¶172

2024:HHC:9207

¶173

24 -

¶174

representations to respondent No.2 submitted on 20.06.2022 and 30.10.2023. Respondent No.2 did not care to look into grievances of the petitioners. These were followed by a legal notice dated 19.04.2023, despite this, respondent No.2 did

¶175

not bother to examine the justifiability or otherwise of the grievances raised before him by the petitioners. The detail of the case had been mentioned in these representations and also in the legal notice. Had respondent No.2 considered petitioners’ representations/legal notice etc. at the relevant time, had respondent No.2 looked into entire case gamut, had he pondered over as to whether his action of not releasing the awarded amount to the petitioners was backed by documents and law, the situation being faced today would have been avoided.

¶176

4(iv) Withholding compensation amount admittedly due

¶177

to a person in terms of an unchallenged land acquisition award is a very serious issue. The least that was expected from respondent No.2 was to examine the record himself and to see whether there was any justifiable reason for not disbursing the compensation amount. In the given facts, respondent No.2 ought to have satisfied himself about the

¶178

2024:HHC:9207

¶179

25 -

¶180

nature of interim order passed by the Divisional

¶181

Commissioner, its effect upon release of awarded amount in favour of Sh. Sukh Dev Singh/petitioners; Whether the Divisional Commissioner had ordered stay of disbursement of the compensation amount to which the petitioners were entitled to or not; The justifiability of rapat No. 563; Whether the rapat entered by the Patwari concerned on 15.07.2017 was in consonance with the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla; What was the true import of rapat No. 563; Whether the dispute before the Revenue Court had

¶182

any relation or any connection whatsoever with the petitioners etc.. Blindfold reliance upon the report so entered by the Patwari and then misreading even that rapat for not releasing the compensation amount in favour of the petitioners under an award which had become final, was wholly unwarranted.

¶183

5. The sum total of above discussion is that

¶184

respondent No.2 read something in the jamabandi, which was not there. Respondent No.2 without any basis whatsoever presumed that compensation amount in lieu of petitioners’ acquired land cannot be released in their favour.

¶185

2024:HHC:9207

¶186

26 -

¶187

The rapats made over the jamabandi are, in fact,

¶188

to the extent that Divisional Commissioner on 03.10.2016

¶189

had ordered for not transferring the land. Respondent No.2 did not even verify the correctness of this rapat made by the concerned Patwari, despite the fact that the petitioners had been repeatedly requesting him, representing him, issuing him legal notice to release the amount due to them under the land acquisition award.

¶190

Even after the petitioners were compelled to file this writ petition, respondent No.2 did not deem it appropriate to look into the record himself, as to whether he was justified in not releasing the compensation due to the petitioners. It was only on 17.08.2024 that the payment of compensation amount due to the petitioners was uploaded on BHUMI Rashi Portal.

¶191

In view of above discussion and reasons, action of respondent No.2 in not timely releasing the compensation amount due to the petitioners under the land acquisition award passed on 22.03.2017, cannot be condoned. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.2 is directed to release the amount of compensation due to the

¶192

2024:HHC:9207

¶193

27 -

¶194

petitioners in terms of the award dated 22.03.2017 alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of deposit of the amount by respondent No.1-NHAI till the uploading of petitioners’ name on Bhumi Rashi Portal. Respondent No.2 is also imposed costs of Rs.1 lac for compelling the petitioners to institute the writ petition Court for release of compensation amount, which was admittedly due to them, in terms of the award. Costs be paid to the petitioners within four weeks.

¶195

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶196

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶197

September 17, 2024 R.Atal

Amrit Lal and Another v. NHAI and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amrit Lal and Another v. NHAI and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nanak Chand Gupta Vs State of Hp and Others

Amlesh Yadav alias Kamlesh Vs State of Hp

Abhishek Manu Singhvi Vs Harsh Mahajan

Vinta Devi Vs Suresh Kumar

Shamsher Singh Vs Sumitra Devi

Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others