Jai Singh vs State of H.P.

Piar Singh Rana, J.—Order Present civil writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pleaded therein that respondents in order to construct a road known as Syanh bia Dhaban Bhyarta Rao road in March 1992 allured and assured the inhabitants of village Dhaban including the petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest that road would be constructed through village and adequate compensation as per provision of Land Acquisition Act would be provided to the petitioners/predecessors-in-interest of petitioners. It is pleaded that on the request of respondents the petitioners and other inhabitants of village allowed to construct the road through their land which the respondents have now constructed. It is pleaded that notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued many times for publication but each time the same was allowed to be elapsed deliberately. It is further pleaded that petitioners inquired as to when the compensation of acquired land would be paid to them but each time officials of respondents went on making excuse that acquisition proceedings are in progress. It is pleaded that petitioner No. 1 and one Kanshi Ram filed Civil Suit Nos. 40 of 2005 and 39 of 2005 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. II Mandi District Mandi H.P. and learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. II Mandi District Mandi H.P. partly decreed the suits. It is pleaded that copies of judgment and decree sheet in Civil Suit No. 40 of 2005 are Annexure P-1 and P-2 and copies of judgment and decree sheet of civil suit No. 39 of 2005 are Annexure P-3 and P-4. It is pleaded that respondents did not comply the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. II Mandi and it is further pleaded that thereafter execution petition No. 2-X/2010 dated 28.4.2010 was filed. It is further pleaded that respondents have acquired the land of petitioners without paying the acquisition amount. It is pleaded that petitioners are small farmers and their source of income for livelihood, education and other expenses is solely depend upon the agriculture land. It is pleaded that petitioners have been deprived of their immovable property except by authority of law. It is further pleaded that respondents be directed to initiate land acquisition proceedings in accordance with law to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners within time bound period. It is pleaded that officials who allow the period of notification to be elapsed should be personally liable for the breach of direction. It is further prayed that exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000/- be also imposed upon the respondents and costs of writ petition to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- be also imposed upon the respondents. Prayer for acceptance of petition sought.

Per contra reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 pleaded therein that respondents constructed road namely Syanh Dhaban Bhayarta road vide temple Tanda in the year 1992 on verbal consent and request of the petitioners and other land owners and they also took part in the construction of said road. It is further pleaded that since road was constructed by the replying respondents with due verbal consent of land owners concerned hence neither petitioners nor other land owners raised any objection during construction work. It is further pleaded that vehicles are frequently plying on the said road since long time. It is pleaded that petitioner Jai Singh and one Kanshi Ram filed suits for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction before learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. II Mandi and both suits were decreed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. II Mandi vide judgment dated 26.9.2007 and 27.12.2007 respectively. It is further pleaded that learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. II Mandi directed the respondents department to initiate the appropriate proceedings of acquisition and settle the amount of compensation within a period of one year from the date of decision. It is pleaded that during the pendency of civil suits Executive Engineer Mandi Division No. II HPPWD Mandi had already taken the matter with Land Acquisition Officer HPPWD Mandi to acquire the land involved in both cases and Land Acquisition Officer Mandi prepared the acquisition papers and same were submitted to the Government for further proceedings. It is pleaded that in case of Kanshi Ram notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act was issued on dated 7.8.2008 by Secretary (PWD) but same was got elapsed for the reason that notifications under Sections 6 and 7 could not be finalized within period of one year. It is also pleaded that matter was again taken up with Government for acquisition of land mentioned in judgments of Civil Court. It is pleaded that in case of Jai Singh the matter was also taken up by respondents department with Government of H.P. in January 2009 for issuing of notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act but the case was returned by Government of H.P. with some observations and now the matter has been taken up with the Government of H.P. to start the acquisition process. It is pleaded that compensation would be paid to the petitioners Jai Singh and Kanshi Ram as and when their land mentioned in judgments of Civil Court is acquired. It is pleaded that claim of petitioner Nos. 2 to 26 suffered with delay and laches and they are not entitled for any claim at this belated stage. It is pleaded that alleged road as admitted by petitioners was constructed in the year 1992 and petitioner Nos. 2 to 26 remained silent for a period of more then 20 years and now keeping in view the verdicts of Hon''ble Apex Court of India reported in case State of Maharashtra Vs. Digambar, and of this Hon''ble Court in case Shankar Dass alias Shankru vs. State of H.P. petitioner Nos. 2 to 26 are not entitled for any relief of compensation. It is pleaded that present civil writ petition is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties and petitioner Nos. 2 to 26 have been estopped to file the present writ petition due to their own act and conduct. Prayer for dismissal of civil writ petition sought.

Petitioners also filed rejoinder and re-asserted the allegations mentioned in the petition.

Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents and Court also perused the entire record carefully.

Following points arise for determination in this civil writ petition:-

Whether petitioner No. 1 Jai Singh son of Prabhu Ram is entitled for compensation of his land as per provisions of Land Acquisition Act 1894 changed to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as alleged?

Whether petitioner Nos. 2 to 26 are also entitled for compensation of land as per provisions of Land Acquisition Act 1894 changed to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as alleged?

Final Order.

Findings on point No. 1

Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 is legally entitled for compensation of his land for construction of road as per provisions of Land Acquisition Act 1894 changed to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that Shri Jai Singh son of Shri Prabhu Ram filed Civil Suit No. 39 of 2005 titled Jai Singh vs. State of H.P. and others on dated 3.6.2005 which was decided on dated 26.9.2007 by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. II Mandi District Mandi HP. It is proved on record that learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. II Mandi District Mandi HP partly decreed the suit of plaintiff and held that Shri Jai Singh plaintiff is entitled for compensation as per provisions of Land Acquisition Act. (1) State of H.P. through Secretary HPPWD Shimla-2, (2) Superintending Engineer, HPPWD Mandi District Mandi H.P. (3) Executive Engineer HPPWD Division No. 2 Mandi were directed to initiate the acquisition proceedings and settle the amount of compensation within a period of one year i.e. w.e.f. 26.9.2007. Respondents have admitted in reply that till date compensation amount has not been paid to Jai Singh under Land Acquisition Act. It is proved on record that respondents have not complied the decree of suit passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. II Mandi District Mandi HP in Civil Suit No. 39 of 2005 titled Jai Singh vs. State of H.P. and others. There is no document on record in order to prove that judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. II Mandi District Mandi HP announced in Civil Suit No. 39 of 2005 titled Jai Singh vs. State of H.P. and others was challenged. Hence it is held that judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. II Mandi District Mandi HP in Civil Suit No. 39 of 2005 has attained the stage of finality.

Submission of learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents that proceedings under Land Acquisition Act changed to The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 are under process qua land of Jai Singh and on this ground civil writ petition filed by Jai Singh be dismissed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons mentioned hereinafter. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. II Mandi District Mandi HP has directed in positive manner to settle the amount of compensation within one year i.e. w.e.f. 26.9.2007. The time bound direction for settlement of compensation amount was given by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. II Mandi District Mandi HP. But respondents did not settle the amount of compensation within time bound period given by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. II Mandi District Mandi HP and respondents have flouted the judgment passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. II Mandi District Mandi HP. Respondents also did not seek any extension of time from learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. II Mandi District Mandi HP for compliance of judgment and decree. In view of above stated facts it is held that respondents are under legal obligation to comply the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. II Mandi District Mandi HP as per law. Point No. 1 is answered in favour of petitioner No. 1 Jai Singh.

Findings on Point No. 2

Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners Nos. 2 to 26 that petitioners Nos. 2 to 26 are also legally entitled for compensation amount as per Land Acquisition Act 1894 changed to The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 implemented from dated 1.1.2014 is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that road was constructed in the year 1992. It is proved on record that from 1992 till 30.11.2012 petitioners Nos. 2 to 26 did not file any civil writ petition and also did not file any civil suit for compensation amount. It was held in case reported in 2013 (2) Him.L.R. (FB) 698 titled Shankar Das vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and connected matter that direction under Article 226 of the Constitution against the State to initiate land acquisition proceedings in respect of land after lapse of sufficient time could not be issued. It was held in case cited supra that principle of delay and latches could be used to deny relief to those petitioners who have approached the Court after an inordinate and unexplained delay. It was also held that person is supposed to be vigilant of his rights and therefore he must approach the Court within a reasonable time. It was also held that relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is a discretionary relief and one of the grounds on which relief could be refused is that the party has approached the writ Courts after inordinate delay. In present case petitioners No. 2 to 26 did not file any civil writ petition within reasonable time w.e.f. 1992 till 29.11.2012. In view of above stated facts point No. 2 is decided against petitioners Nos. 2 to 26 on the concept of delay and latches.

Final Order

In view of above said findings (1) It is held that respondents will comply the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 39 of 2005 announced on dated 26.9.2007 titled Jai Singh vs. State of H.P. within two month from today. (2) It is held that writ petition of petitioners Nos. 2 to 26 is dismissed in view of ruling given by Full Bench of Hon''ble High Court of H.P. in case reported in 2013 (2) Him.L.R. (FB) 698 titled Shankar Das vs. State of H.P. and connected matter and on the concept of delay and latches. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Writ petition stands disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application(s) if any also stands disposed of.