SHIV SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. on 25 April 2018

[2018] 3 S.C.R. 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 LandAcquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.15(2) –Non-compliance of, effect – Objections filed by the land ownerschallenging proposed acquisition – Non-submission of report byCollector to the appropriate government on the objections – Held:Under the scheme of the Act, once the objections are filed by theaffected landowners, the same are required to be decided by theCollector under s.15(2) of the Act after affording an opportunity ofbeing heard to the landowners, who submitted their objections andafter making further inquiry, as the Collector may think necessary,he is required to submit his report to the appropriate Governmentfor appropriate action in the acquisition in question – It is mandatoryon the part of the Collector to comply with the procedure prescribedunder s.15(2) so as to make the acquisition proceedings legal andin conformity with the provisions of the Act – In this case, theCollector neither gave any opportunity to the appellants ascontemplated under s.15(2) nor submitted any report as providedunder s.15(2) to the Government so as to enable the Government totake appropriate decision – Therefore, the Collector directed todecide the objections filed by the appellants keeping in view therequirements of s.15(2) and pass appropriate orders.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: It is not in dispute that the appellants had filedtheir objections to the proposed acquisition well within the timeprescribed under Section 15 of the Act. There is non-complianceof Section 15(2) of the Act by the Collector. It is mandatory onthe part of the Collector to comply with the procedure prescribedunder Section 15(2) of the Act so as to make the acquisitionproceedings legal and in conformity with the provisions of the

947

A

B

CDE

F

G

H

AAct. Respondent No.2 (Collector) is directed to decide theobjections filed by the appellants keeping in view therequirements of Section 15(2) of the Act and pass appropriateorders. [Paras 6, 8 and 12][949-A, D-G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4414Bof 2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 01.11.2016 of the High Courtof Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Writ Petition No. CWP No. 2159 of2016.

Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Adv., Bhagabati Prasad Padhy, Adv. for theCAppellants.

Abhinav Mukerji, AAG, Ms. Bihu Sharma, Siddharth Garg, Ms.Purnima Krishna, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered byDABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated01.11.2016 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla inWrit Petition No. 2159 of 2016 whereby the Division Bench of the HighCourt dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants herein whereinEthe challenge was made to the land acquisition proceedings initiated bythe respondent-State for acquisition of the appellants’ land.

3. In order to appreciate the issues involved in the appeal, fewrelevant facts need to be mentioned hereinbelow.

4. The dispute in this case relates to acquisition of the landFbelonging to the appellants which is sought to be acquired under theprovisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in LandAcquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafterreferred to as “the Act”).

5. By notification dated 08.12.2015 issued under Section 11 of theGAct, the State of Himachal Pradesh sought to acquire the appellants’land measuring around 1-00-49 Hectares along with the lands of otherlandowners. The acquisition was for public purpose, namely, “constructionof road from Bus Stand Ruhil to Upper Ruhil via Kuper”.

H

6. It is not in dispute that the appellants (writ petitioners) had filedtheir 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 bythe affected landowners, the same are required to be decided by theCollector under Section 15(2) of the Act after affording an opportunityof being heard to the landowners, who submitted their objections andafter making further inquiry, as the Collector may think necessary, he isrequired to submit his report to the appropriate Government for appropriateaction in the acquisition in question.

8. In this case, we find that the Collector neither gave anyopportunity to the appellants as contemplated under Section 15(2) of theAct and nor submitted any report as provided under Section 15(2) of theAct to the Government so as to enable the Government to takeappropriate decision. In other words, we find that there is non-complianceof Section 15(2) of the Act by the Collector. In our view, it is mandatoryon the part of the Collector to comply with the procedure prescribedunder Section 15(2) of the Act so as to make the acquisition proceedingslegal and in conformity with the provisions of the Act.

9. The aforementioned aspect of the case does not appear tohave been taken note of by the High Court, resulting in dismissal of theappellants’ writ petition requiring interference by this Court.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent-State was also not ableto show from the record that there was proper compliance of Section15(2) of the Act by the Collector. The counter affidavit filed by the Statealso does not show any averment to prove this fact.

11. It is for this reason and without going into any other issuearising in the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal, set aside theimpugned judgment and allow the appellants’ writ petition in part.

12. We hereby direct the respondent No.2 herein (Collector, WinterField, Shimla-3 HP) to decide the objections filed by the appellants on05.01.2016 keeping in view the requirements of Section 15(2) of the Actand pass appropriate orders.

13. Let the objections be decided within three months from thedate of this order as an outer limit uninfluenced by our observationsmade in the order.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

950SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2018] 3 S.C.R.

A14. With these observations and directions, the appeal standsallowed.

Devika Gujral

Appeal allowed.

B

C

D

E

F

G

H