Dismissed

State of Hp through Secretary (Hppwd) and Ors. v. Soma Devi and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Dec 2024LPA/414/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the State against a judgment directing initiation of land acquisition proceedings involving respondents’ land utilized for state road construction. The Court rejected the state argument regarding deemed acquisition and dismissed similar past appeals filed by the State.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; respondents to take consequential action within four weeks.

State of Hp through Secretary (Hppwd) and Ors. Vs… — Land Acquisition | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

LPA No. 414 of 2024 Date of Decision: 02.12.2024

¶3

State of H.P & others

¶4

...Appellants.

¶5

Versus Soma Devi & others

¶6

...Respondents.

¶7

Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the appellant/State : Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for the appellants/ State. For the Respondents : Mr. Jagan Nath, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶8

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral)

¶9

This appeal has been preferred by the State against judgment dated 10.10.2023, passed in CWP No.2425 of 2023, titled Soma Devi v. State of H.P. & others, whereby learned Single after taking into consideration verdict of Hon’ble Coordinate Bench in CWP No.2948 of 2023 titled as Manbhari & ors. vs state of H.P. & ors. has allowed the petition, directing the appellants-State to initiate

¶10

proceedings to acquire the land utilized by the State for construction

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

of the road within two months from passing of Judgment, operative portion whereof, reads under:-

¶14

5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the observation that the directions as has been passed by the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench in CWP 2948 of 2023 (supra) shall be read to have been passed mutatis mutandis in the present petition also and the respondents are directed to initiate proceedings to acquire the land of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today and complete the process, as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within a period of two months from today.

¶15

Admittedly, the land belonging to the respondents/

¶16

petitioner, comprised in Khewat No. 126/105 min, Khatouni No. 148/129 min, Khasra Nos. 166, measuring 14-16-00, situated at Mohal Behna, Sub Tehsil Dehar, District Mandi, H.P., was utilized by the State for the construction of “Dehar to Triphalghat Road” in the year 1979-

¶17

80, was utilized by the State for the construction of “ Dehar to Triphalghat Road ” in the year 1979-80. 2.

¶18

Present appeal has been filed on the ground that the petitioners were not entitled for relief on the ground of delay and latches.

¶19

Learned Additional Advocate General has also submitted that SLP, titled as State of H.P. & others vs. Nek Ram, preferred by the State, is also pending adjudication before the Supreme Court. We fail

¶20

¶21

to understand that when large number of cases have been decided by the Supreme Court dismissing the SLPs/Appeals of the State of H.P. in similar matters, then for what purpose the reference of pendency of another petition in the Supreme Court has been made on behalf of the State.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No(s).49057 of 2024, titled as The State of Himachal Pradesh & others vs. Upender Kumar, preferred by the State against judgment dated 27.03.2024 passed in LPA No.54 of 2017, whereby petition preferred by the State has been dismissed by passing following order:-

¶23

“2. We have come across several matters wherein the State of Himachal Pradesh has challenged the orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, thereby directing the compensation to be paid to the respondent(s).

¶24

The writ petitioner(s) has approached the High Court with a grievance that though the possession of their lands were taken for road construction, they did not receive compensation.

¶25

By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has held that the State cannot take possession of citizen land without paying the compensation.

¶26

Although the right to property is no longer considered a fundamental right, it is still a constitutional right. The State cannot be permitted to acquire citizen land without paying appropriate compensation.

¶27

In these circumstances, it would have been justified in dismissing the special leave petition(s) with exemplary cost. However, we refrain from doing so now and simply dismiss these special leave petitions.”

¶28

¶29

Present appeal has been filed on the ground that the petitioners were not entitled for relief on the ground of delay and latches.

¶30

In similar matters, identical appeals have been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court passed in LPA No.40 of 2024 , titled State of HP vs. Ramesh Kumar, decided on 27^th February, 2024 ; LPA No.24 of 2019, titled as State of HP vs. Baldev Singh and others, decided on 27^th March, 2024 ; LPA No.144 of 2024, titled State of HP vs.

¶31

Karam Singh, decided on 27^th May, 2024 ; LPA No.151 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Prem Nath, decided on 12^th June, 2024; LPA No.154 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Sohan Lal, decided on 14^th June, 2024; LPA No.177 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Satdev Sharma & others, decided on 1^st July, 2024; LPA No.230 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Chet Ram & others, decided on 2^nd September, 2024; LPA No.303 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Vishal Kumar & others, decided on 24^th September, 2024; LPA No.371 of 2024, titled as State of H.P. & others vs. Lekh Ram & others, decided on November 12, 2024; LPA No.382 of 2024, titled as State of H.P. & others vs. Om Parkash and another, decided on November 26, 2024; LPA No.383 of 2024, titled as State of H.P. & others vs. Ram Chand & others, decided on November 26, 2024; and LPA No.394 of 2024, titled as State of H.P. & others vs. Bakshi Ram &

¶32

¶33

others, decided on November 27, 2024 , by referring the judgment of the Supreme Court including judgment/order in SLP (C ) No.10492 of 2023 , titled Dharnidhar Mishre (D) and another vs. State of Bihar and others , and Civil Appeal No.6466 of 2024 , titled Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs. Bimal Kumar Shah and others; Vidya Devi vs. State of H.P. & others, (2020) 2 SCC 569; and Sukh Dutt Ratra and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, (2022) 7 SCC 508.

¶34

8 . Judgment dated 19.09.2023, passed in Manbhari’s case (CWP No.2948 of 2023) was assailed by the State by filing LPA No. 240 of 2024 , titled State of Himachal Pradesh & others v Manbhari & others , which stands dismissed alongwith connected matters. LPA No.233 of 2024, titled as State of H.P. & others vs. Kamla Devi; LPA No.234 of 2024, titled as State of H.P. & others vs. Sunka Ram and others; LPA No.235 of 2024, titled as State of H.P. & others vs. Mahanti and others; LPA No.241 of 2024, titled as State of H.P. & others vs. Premu & another; and LPA No. 248 of 2024, titled as State of H.P. & others vs. Ludar Chand, vide common judgment dated 10.09.2024 and the direction to acquire the land of similarly situated persons, used for public purpose, has been upheld.

¶35

Learned Additional Advocate General is not able to point out any ground indicating that present case is not squarely covered by aforesaid verdicts of the Court. Learned Advocate General submits that

¶36

¶37

in similar matter direction has been issued to consider deemed acquisition of the land at the time of utilization and, therefore, he has prayed for modifying the present judgment accordingly.

¶38

Learned Additional Advocate General submits that in similar matter direction has been issued to consider deemed acquisition of the land at the time of utilization and, therefore, he has prayed for modifying the present judgment accordingly.

¶39

In our considered view, aforesaid prayer regarding deemed acquisition is not tenable because such directions would create chaos and confusion with respect to the adequate and fair compensation for which the owner is entitled. A due process is to be followed for determine adequate and fair compensation as provided under law either under old Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or new Act, i.e. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. There is no provision for deemed acquisition either under old Act or new Act. In case of deemed acquisition, it would also be difficult to decide under which Act fair, just and adequate compensation is to be determined. Therefore, we do not find any merit in submissions of learned Advocate General to observe that land utilized by the State, without following the process of law, is deemed to have been acquired.

¶40

¶41

In aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or any other perversity in the impugned judgment. Therefore, appeal is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits.

¶42

We consider it fit to record that State is preferring the appeals despite dismissal of their similar appeals in identical matters. Such conduct is not in consonance with the Litigation Policy adopted by the State of HP which is causing wasting the time and energy of the State as well as the Court. It may invite imposing cost but taking lenient view, no cost is being imposed.

¶43

Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with direction that consequential action, in terms of judgment dated 10.10.2023 passed in CWP No. 2425 of 2023, titled Soma Devi v. State of H.P. & others , be taken within four weeks.

¶44