Quashed

Collector Land Aquisition v. Banta Devi

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Jan 2024RFA/7/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the trial court's award regarding compensation for land acquired for the Parbati Hydro Electric Project. The court revived the reference petitions and directed a fresh award to be passed based on the entire material on record, following similar directions in a connected appeal.

What did the court decide?

Reference petitions revived; fresh award to be passed within six months based on entire material on record.

Collector Land Aquisition Vs Banta Devi — Land Acquisition | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶3

RFA No. 7 of 2014 Reserved on : 03.10.2023 Decided on : 2 nd January, 2024

¶4

Collector Land Acquisition	.......Appellant
	Versus
Banta Devi & Others	…....Respondents
Coram
*The Hon’ble Mr. Justice* *Whether approved for re*	*Virender Singh, Judge.* *porting?*¹
For the appellant :	Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, Advocate.
For the respondents:	Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.2.
	Mr. Mohinder Zharaick & Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General with Ms.
	Leena Guleria, Deputy
	Advocate General, for respondent No.6.
	None for respondents No.1,
	3 and 5.

¶5

Virender Singh, Judge.

¶6

Collector Land Acquisition Parbati Hydro Electric Project, has filed the present appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), aggrieved against the award dated 03.04.2013, passed by 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶7

¶8

the Court of learned District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial Court), in reference petition No.67/2012.

¶9

By way of the award, impugned herein, the reference petition filed by respondents No.1 to 5, was allowed, by granting the following relief :-

¶10

“26. In view of findings given on issues above, the reference petition is allowed and the petitioners are held entitled to Rs.19,850/- per biswa of acquired land, irrespective of classification of land. In addition to this, for the land acquired by the respondent, the petitioners are also entitled to:-

¶11

a) Solatium at the rate of 30% under Section 23(2) of the Act on the compensation assessed under Section 23(1) of the Act.

¶12

b) Additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) of the Act @ 12% per annum on the market value determined above from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act till date of award of collector.

¶13

c) Interest @ 9% per annum on enhanced amount of compensation under Section 23(1), additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) and solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act for the first one year and thereafter, @ 15% per annum

¶14

d) interest under section 34 of the Act from the date of possession, if not paid.”

¶15

3 . For the sake of convenience, the parties to the

¶16

present lis are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, as were, referred to, by the learned trial Court.

¶17

¶18

4 Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, before this Court, may be summed up as under:-

¶19

4.1. The Land of the petitioners was acquired for construction of Parbati Hydro-Electric Project. In this regard notification under Section 4 of the Act, was issued on 21.03.2006.

¶20

4.2. The said notification was given vide publicity. Thereafter, the other codal formalities, as per Section 6 of the Act, were completed and ultimately award, under Section 11 of the Act, was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, on 18.7.2009.

¶21

4.3. Aggrieved from the said award, the petitioners have preferred the reference petition under Section 18 of the Act, before the Land Acquisition Collector, who has forwarded the same to the learned trial Court, for adjudication.

¶22

The learned trial Court, vide common award, in a batch of petitions, lead case whereof was Land Reference Petition No.2 of 2012 , titled as Nantu & Others versus Collector Land Acquisition & Another, has allowed the petitions, as referred to above.

¶23

Aggrieved from the said award, the present appeal has been filed before this Court, mainly on the

¶24

¶25

ground that the Land Acquisition Collector had awarded the compensation on the basis of classification of land in consonance with potentiality, as recorded in the revenue record. The valuation of the land, as per the classification, has wrongly been ignored.

¶26

On the basis of the grounds of appeal, the present appeal has been filed. The Collector Land Acquisition, has also assailed the award passed in the connected reference petitions, by way of batch of RFAs, lead case whereof is RFA No.4144 of 2013 , titled as Collector Land Acquisition versus Surat Ram & Others

¶27

In the said appeal, a coordinate Bench of this

¶28

Court, has passed the following order, on 30.4.2014:

¶29

“8. As such, impugned award dated 3.4.2013, passed by District Judge, Kullu, H.P., is quashed and set aside with the following directions:-

¶30

(i) Reference petitions stand revived. (ii) Parties, as agreed, shall appear before the District Judge on 30.5.2014.

¶31

(iii) The Court shall fix dates for leading evidence by both the parties.

¶32

(iv) Proceedings stand expedited. Reference petitions shall be decided within a period of six months from the date of appearance so fixed.

¶33

(v) Fresh award shall be passed, in accordance with law, on the basis of entire material, including the one already placed on record by the parties.

¶34

¶35

Since, the present appeal has also been filed against the reference petition, which was decided with Land Reference Petition No.2 of 2012 , titled as Nantu

¶36

& Others versus Collector Land Acquisition & Another, on 30.4.2013, as such the present appeal is also disposed of by passing the following directions:-

¶37

(i) Reference petitions stand revived.

¶38

(ii) Parties, shall appear before the District Judge on 15.01.2024.

¶39

(iii) The Court shall fix dates for leading evidence by both the parties.

¶40

(iv) Proceedings stand expedited. Reference petitions shall be decided within a period of six months from the date of appearance so fixed.

¶41

(v) Fresh award shall be passed, in accordance with law, on the basis of entire material, including the one already placed on record by the parties.

¶42

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶43

Record be sent down.

¶44

( Virender Singh ) Judge

¶45

January 02, 2023 (ps)

Collector Land Aquisition v. Banta Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Collector Land Aquisition v. Banta Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamaljeet Kaur Vs State of Hp

Shastra i.e., Society for Health and Social Transformation Rehabilitation Vs Kimtu Devi

Manmeet Singh Vs State of Hp

Deepak Kapta Vs Devkali

State Vs Ram Murti

Mohammad Zubair Vs State of Hp