1

REPORTABLE

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)

J U D G M E N T

[

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 the challenge was made to

the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the

2

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”.

3

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

4

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

5

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