Non-Compliance of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act by Collector can nullify Land Acquisition by State: SC

The Supreme Court docket on 25th April, 2018 stated that non-compliance of area 15(2) of Suitable to Fair Payment and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 by the collector can nullify the land acquisition performed by Condition. This decision was specified by the bench of Hon’ble Justices R.K. Agarwal and Abhay Manohar Sapre in the scenario of Shiv Singh & Ors V. Condition of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.4414 OF 2018]

This attractiveness was submitted in opposition to the remaining judgment and buy dated 01.11.2016 handed by the Large Court docket of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Writ Petition No. 2159 of 2016 whereby the Division Bench of the Large Court docket dismissed the writ petition submitted by the appellants herein whereby the obstacle was created to the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondent-Condition for acquisition of appellants land.

The dispute in this scenario relates to acquisition of the land belonging to the appellants which is sought to be obtained beneath the provisions of the Suitable to Fair Payment and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

By notification dated 08.12.2015 issued beneath Portion 11 of the Act, the Condition of Himachal Pradesh sought to acquire the appellants’ land measuring around 1-00-49 Hectares alongside with the lands of other landowners. The acquisition was for public intent, namely, “construction of highway from Bus Stand Ruhil to Higher Ruhil through Kuper”. It was also mentioned that  appellants (writ petitioners) had submitted their objections to the proposed acquisition on 05.01.2016  very well in just the time approved beneath Portion 15 of the Act.

Less than the plan of the Act, after the objections are submitted by the impacted landowners, the exact same are expected to be made a decision by the Collector beneath Portion 15(2) of the Act following affording an option of remaining read to the landowners, who submitted their objections and following earning further inquiry, as the Collector might assume necessary, he is expected to submit his report to the ideal Government for ideal motion in the acquisition in dilemma.

But the court docket located that In this scenario, we uncover that the Collector neither gave any option to the appellants as contemplated beneath Portion 15(2) of the Act and nor submitted any report as presented beneath Portion 15(2) of the Act to the Government so as to empower the Government to consider ideal decision. In other words, we uncover that there is non-compliance of Portion 15(2) of the Act by the Collector.  In our view, it is required on the aspect of the Collector to comply with the course of action approved beneath Portion 15(2) of the Act so as to make the acquisition proceedings authorized and in conformity with the provisions of the Act.

So the Supreme Court docket while offering its remaining decision stated “The aforementioned facet of the scenario does not show up to have been taken note of by the Large Court docket, ensuing in dismissal of the appellants’ writ petition requiring interference by this Court docket. Uncovered counsel for the respondent-Condition was also not equipped to demonstrate from the document that there was proper compliance of Portion 15(2) of the Act by the Collector. The counter affidavit submitted by the Condition also does not demonstrate any averment to confirm this fact.”

It is for this reason and without going into any other challenge arising in the scenario, the Supreme Court docket was inclined to permit the attractiveness, set apart the impugned judgment and permit the appellants’ writ petition in aspect.

The Court docket also directed the respondent No.2 herein (Collector,  Wintertime Subject, Shimla-3 HP) to choose the objections submitted by the appellants on 05.01.2016 preserving in view the needs of Portion 15(2) of the Act and go ideal orders. They also stated that the objections be made a decision in just 3 months from the date of this buy.

Shares 0

Post Author: gupta

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *