SHIV SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.

                         [2018] 3 S.C.R. 947                              947


                       SHIV SINGH & ORS.                                  A
                                  v.
           STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 4414 of 2018)
                           APRIL 25, 2018                                 B
  [R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
      Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.15(2) –
Non-compliance of, effect – Objections filed by the land owners
                                                                          C
challenging proposed acquisition – Non-submission of report by
Collector to the appropriate government on the objections – Held:
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 s.15(2) of the Act after affording an opportunity of
being heard to the landowners, who submitted their objections and         D
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 – It is mandatory
on the part of the Collector to comply with the procedure prescribed
under s.15(2) so as to make the acquisition proceedings legal and
                                                                          E
in conformity with the provisions of the Act – In this case, the
Collector neither gave any opportunity to the appellants as
contemplated under s.15(2) nor submitted any report as provided
under s.15(2) to the Government so as to enable the Government to
take appropriate decision – Therefore, the Collector directed to
decide the objections filed by the appellants keeping in view the         F
requirements of s.15(2) and pass appropriate orders.
      Allowing the appeal, the Court
      HELD: It is not in dispute that the appellants had filed
their objections to the proposed acquisition well within the time
prescribed under Section 15 of the Act. There is non-compliance           G
of Section 15(2) of the Act by the Collector. 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
                                                                          H
                                 947
948            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 3 S.C.R.


A     Act. Respondent No.2 (Collector) is directed to decide the
      objections filed by the appellants keeping in view the
      requirements of Section 15(2) of the Act and pass appropriate
      orders. [Paras 6, 8 and 12][949-A, D-G]
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4414
B     of 2018.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 01.11.2016 of the High Court
      of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Writ Petition No. CWP No. 2159 of
      2016.
            Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Adv., Bhagabati Prasad Padhy, Adv. for the
C     Appellants.
           Abhinav Mukerji, AAG, Ms. Bihu Sharma, Siddharth Garg, Ms.
      Purnima Krishna, Advs. for the Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D           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 appellants herein wherein
E     the challenge was made to the land acquisition proceedings initiated by
      the 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
F     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
G     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”.

H
        SHIV SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH                                   949
               [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

       6. It is not in dispute that the appellants (writ petitioners) had filed   A
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           B
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               C
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 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              D
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.                   E

      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.
                                                                                  F
       11. It is for this reason and without going into any other issue
arising in the case, we are inclined to 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
                                                                                  G
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.
                                                                                  H
950              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2018] 3 S.C.R.


A           14. With these observations and directions, the appeal stands
      allowed.


      Devika Gujral                                          Appeal allowed.

B




C




D




E




F




G




H