SHIV SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 947 · Decided: 25-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
947
SHIV SINGH & ORS.
v.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4414 of 2018)
APRIL 25, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.15(2) –
Non-compliance of, effect – Objections filed by the land owners
challenging proposed acquisition – Non-submission of report by
Collector to the appropriate government on the objections – Held:
Under the scheme of the Act, once the objections are filed by the
affected landowners, the same are required to be decided by the
Collector under s.15(2) of the Act after affording an opportunity of
being heard to the landowners, who submitted their objections and
after making further inquiry, as the Collector may think necessary,
he is required to submit his report to the appropriate Government
for appropriate action in the acquisition in question – It is mandatory
on the part of the Collector to comply with the procedure prescribed
under s.15(2) so as to make the acquisition proceedings legal and
in conformity with the provisions of the Act – In this case, the
Collector neither gave any opportunity to the appellants as
contemplated under s.15(2) nor submitted any report as provided
under s.15(2) to the Government so as to enable the Government to
take appropriate decision – Therefore, the Collector directed to
decide the objections filed by the appellants keeping in view the
requirements of s.15(2) and pass appropriate orders.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:  It is not in dispute that the appellants had filed
their objections to the proposed acquisition well within the time
prescribed under Section 15 of the Act. There is non-compliance
of Section 15(2) of the Act by the Collector.  It is mandatory on
the part of the Collector to comply with the procedure prescribed
under Section 15(2) of the Act so as to make the acquisition
proceedings legal and in conformity with the provisions of the
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 947
947
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
948
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
Act.  Respondent No.2 (Collector) is directed to decide the
objections filed by the appellants keeping in view the
requirements of Section 15(2) of the Act and pass appropriate
orders.  [Paras 6, 8 and 12][949-A, D-G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4414
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.11.2016 of the High Court
of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Writ Petition No. CWP No. 2159 of
2016.
Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Adv., Bhagabati Prasad Padhy, Adv. for the
Appellants.
Abhinav Mukerji, AAG, Ms. Bihu Sharma, Siddharth Garg, Ms.
Purnima Krishna, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated
01.11.2016 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in
Writ Petition No. 2159 of 2016 whereby the Division Bench of the High
Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants herein wherein
the challenge was made to the land acquisition proceedings initiated by
the respondent-State for acquisition of the appellants’ land.
3. In order to appreciate the issues involved in the appeal, few
relevant facts need to be mentioned hereinbelow.
4. The dispute in this case relates to acquisition of the land
belonging to the appellants which is sought to be acquired under the
provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter
referred to as “the Act”).
5. By notification dated 08.12.2015 issued under Section 11 of the
Act, the State of Himachal Pradesh sought to acquire the appellants’
land measuring around 1-00-49 Hectares along with the lands of other
landowners. The acquisition was for public purpose, namely, “construction
of road from Bus Stand Ruhil to Upper Ruhil via Kuper”.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
949
6. It is not in dispute that the appellants (writ petitioners) had filed
their objections to the proposed acquisition on 05.01.2016 (Annexure P-
8) well within the time prescribed under Section 15 of the Act.
7. Under the scheme of the Act, once the objections are filed by
the affected landowners, the same are required to be decided by the
Collector under Section 15(2) of the Act after affording an opportunity
of being heard to the landowners, who submitted their objections and
after making further inquiry, as the Collector may think necessary, he is
requir

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.