Anil Tanwar vs Hem Raj Bairwa And Anr

Sandeep Sharma, J

By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent

for having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in judgment dated 18.5.2016, passed by the Division Bench this Court in CWP

No. 196 of 2016, titled Arun Tanwar and Anr v. State of HP and Ors., whereby writ petition having been filed by the petitioner, seeking therein

direction to the respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings qua additional land owned by the petitioners measuring 7 biswas comprised in khasra

No. 179 situate at village Namol, P.O. Kunihar, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P., came to be disposed of on the basis of statement made by Mr. Vivek

Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 and 4 that respondents have decided to follow the mandate of Land Acquisition Act in case

of acquisition proceedings. Since, despite there being undertaking given to this Court by learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 4, no steps, if any,

ever came to be taken for initiation of acquisition proceedings, petitioner before filing petition at hand approached this Court in two proceedings; 1. in

execution petition No. 132 of 2017; and 2. thereafter by way of contempt petition bearing COPC No. 258 of 2018. Aforesaid Execution petition came

to be disposed of with direction to the respondents to positively take steps and complete process for acquisition of the petitioner’s land in

accordance with law within six months from the date of the passing of the order. However, fact remains that despite there being aforesaid direction

issued on 26.4.2018, in aforesaid Execution Petition, respondents were unable to complete the proceedings and as such, petitioner was compelled to

approach this Court by way of COPC No. 258 of 2018, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 21.10.2019, on the basis of statement made by

Mr. Hem Raj, Special Secretary (Power), who while placing on record copy of communication dated 19.10.2019, issued by Special Secretary

(Power), contended that pursuant to order dated 11.4.2019, notification under Section 4 of the HP Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in

Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Social Impact Assessment and Consent) Act, 2015 has been issued in furtherance of acquisition

proceedings as per procedure. Since despite there being issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, petitioner has not been paid compensation

in the instant proceedings, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

Reply to the petition stands filed on behalf of respondent No.1, wherein it has been categorically stated that since record as submitted by LAO

HPSEBL regarding the acquisition of aforesaid land was not traceable, fresh request was sent to HPSEBL to send the fresh proposal in accordance

with the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 alongwith DPR, the brief description of the proposed project comprising name of Project developer, extent of the

land proposed for the acquisition, the project area and affected area, to carry out the Social Impact Assessment of the Village as per Section 4 of the

Act ibid. Reply further reveals that in compliance to the aforesaid notification, SIA Unit HIPA submitted SIA study report on 4.5.2020, whereafter

report of SIA was sent to the expert group for evaluation on 18.8.2020. The expert group submitted the evaluation report on 2.2.2021. The delay in

submitting the evaluation report was on account of COVID-19. Now after receipt of evaluation report, notification under Section 8(2) of the aforesaid

Act, has been issued. It has been further submitted by respondent No.1 that various statutory requirements as per Section 8(2) of the Act are to be

complied with before issuing notification under Section 11, which is to be issued within 12 months from the date of appraisal report submitted by the

Expert Group i.e. 2.2.2012. Reply further reveals that process of acquisition stands initiated and shall be completed at the earliest as per the provisions

of the Act.

Having taken note of the reply filed by the respondents, this Court finds that judgment alleged to have been violated stands substantially complied

with and as such, there is no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, same is closed with direction to the respondents to do the

needful/complete the acquisition proceedings, expeditiously. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to get the present petition revived in case, needful is

not done by the respondents within the time frame stipulated under the Act for acquisition of the land.