Shiv Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
- SCC(2018) 16 SCC 270
- Neutral2018 INSC 415
- AIRAIR 2018 SC 2159
- SCR[2018] 3 SCR 947
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a land acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 proceeds to government notification without the Collector having complied with Section 15(2)—which mandates that the Collector consider objections filed by affected landowners, afford them opportunity of hearing, make such further inquiry as necessary, and submit a report to the appropriate Government—the acquisition proceedings are illegal and non-compliant with the Act. The procedure prescribed under Section 15(2) is mandatory, and non-compliance requires the acquisition to be set aside and the Collector directed to comply with that section.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4414 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.7981 of 2017]
Shiv Singh & Ors. .. Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. .. Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
[
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
Signature Not Verified appellants herein wherein the challenge was made to Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date: 2018.04.25
the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the 15:22:26 IST Reason: 1 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”.
2
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
required to submit his report to the appropriate
Government for appropriate action in the acquisition
in question.
8) In this case, we find that the Collector neither
gave any opportunity to the appellants as
contemplated under Section 15(2) of the Act and nor
submitted any report as provided under Section 15(2)
of the Act to the Government so as to enable the
3 Government to take appropriate decision. In other
words, we find that there is non-compliance of
Section 15(2) of the Act by the Collector. In our view,
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 Act.
9) The aforementioned aspect of the case does not
appear to have been taken note of by the High Court,
resulting in dismissal of the appellants’ writ petition
requiring interference by this Court.
10) Learned counsel for the respondent-State was
also not able to show from the record that there was
proper compliance of Section 15(2) of the Act by the
Collector. The counter affidavit filed by the State also
does not show any averment to prove this fact.
11) It is for this reason and without going into any
other issue arising in the case, we are inclined to
4 allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment
and allow the appellants’ writ petition in part.
12) We hereby direct the respondent No.2 herein
(Collector, Winter Field, Shimla-3 HP) to decide the
objections filed by the appellants on 05.01.2016
keeping in view the requirements of Section 15(2) of
the Act and pass appropriate orders.
13) Let the objections be decided within three
months from the date of this order as an outer limit
uninfluenced by our observations made in the order.
14) With these observations and directions, the
appeal stands allowed.
………………………………..J (R.K. AGRAWAL)
…..………………………………J. (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE) New Delhi, April 25, 2018
5
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free