STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS versus RAJIV AND ANR.

Citation: [2023] 3 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 24-02-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
   [2023] 3 S.C.R. 1
1
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.
v.
RAJIV AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos.1278 of 2023)
FEBRUARY 24, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.4 – Land in question was used
by the State for construction of road in the year 1996, however, no
compensation was paid and the land was used without acquiring it
under the provisions of the 1894 Act – Writ petition filed by
respondents-land owners in 2016 –Allowed by Single Judge,
appellants directed to initiate the process for acquisition of the land
in accordance with law – Division Bench dismissed the LPA filed by
the appellants on ground of limitation – Held: When the writ petition
and the claim of the land owners to claim the compensation for the
land has been opposed by the State solely on the ground of delay
and laches, the owners of the land used by the State for construction
of the road shall be entitled to the compensation for their lands, on
certain conditions, which was used by the State without acquisition
– 17.05.1996 (the date of the notification issued u/s.4 for acquisition
of the land initially, however was permitted to lapse) be treated as
the deemed date of acquisition u/s.4 – Land owners entitled to the
compensation considering the market price of the land in question
used by the State for construction of the road as on 17.05.1996 –
However, considering the fact that there was huge delay of 20 years
in filing the writ petition, the land owners are not entitled to any
interest under the 1894 Act from 17.05.1996 to the date of filing of
the writ petition, but they are entitled to all the statutory benefits
which may be available under the 1894 Act from 17.05.1996 –
Constitution of India – Arts. 136, 142.
Sukh Dutt Ratra & Anr. Vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
& Ors. (2022) 7 SCC 505 : 2022 (4) JT 31 – referred
to.
Case Law Reference
(2022) (4) JT 31
referred to
Para 4.4
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1278
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.10.2020 of the High Court
of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in CMPM No.1375 of 2019.
Abhimanyu Jhamba, Ms. Thonpinao Thangal, Samir Ali Khan,
Ms. Hatneimawi, Shivam Prashar, Nikhil Jagotra, Ms. Richa Bharti, Advs.
for the Appellants.
Ms. Radhika Gautam, Adv. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 01.10.2020 passed by the High Court of Himachal
Pradesh in CMP (M) No.1375 of 2019 in LPA No.50 of 2020 by which
the Division Bench of the High Court has refused to condone the delay
in preferring the LPA against the judgment and order passed by the
learned Single Judge passed in CWP No.771 of 2016, the State of
Himachal Pradesh has preferred the present appeal.
2. Though the present appeal is against the impugned order passed
by the Division Bench of the High Court refusing to condone the delay
in preferring the LPA, instead of remanding the matter to the Division
Bench to decide the appeal on merits and to consider the legality and
validity of the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Judge, we
have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective
parties on merits against the judgment and order passed by the learned
Single Judge.
2.1 That the respondents herein - original writ petitioners filed the
writ petition before the learned Single Judge of the High Court being
CWP No.771 of 2016 and prayed for the following reliefs:
“(i) That the respondents may be directed to produce entire record
in connection with construction work of road from village Banuti
to village Loharb in Tehsil and District Shimla along with entire
record of the remaining portion from Loharb to Mauja Pahal Tehsil
Sunni showing the process and proceeding which were started
for acquisition of land and for payment of amount of compensation.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
3
(ii) That the respondent may be directed not to deprive the
petitioners of their property without adopting due process of law
and that they should act in accordance with law and make payment
of amount of compensation as per provision law.
(iii) That in case the respondents are, not ready and willing to
start and complete acquisition proceeding and make payment of
amount of compensation in that event they may be directed to
hand over the physical possession of the land in question to the
petitioner and also they may be held liable to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.