Khoob Ram vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Deepak Gupta, J.—By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the grant of the following reliefs:-

(i) That the order dated 31.7.2007 passed by respondent No.2 contained in Annexure-P1 may kindly be quashed qua the right of the petitioner by issuing writ of certiorari;

(ii) That the respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to decide the case of the petitioner on merits and make the payment of compensation to the petitioner of the land bearing Khasra No. 598/1 measuring 1-7-0 bighas by issuing the writ of mandamus;

(iii) The respondents may kindly be directed to make the payment to the petitioner of the improvement made by him on the aforesaid land and also damages caused to the other land during the time of construction of road by issuing writ of mandamus.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that some time in the year 1973-74 land measuring 14 bigha 4 biswa and 6 biswansi was granted by way of nautor to the father of the petitioner. On 20th January, 2004 a notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in Rajpatra and some portion of the land so granted was sought to be acquired for construction of a road. There is some dispute with regard to the extent of the land since in the award the land is shown to be 0-16-18 bigha but as per the petitioner the land actually utilized by the Government is 1-7-0 bigha. This question is not to be decided in the present petition. The Land Acquisition Collector while passing the award relied upon the judgement of this Court in CWP No. 676 of 1998 titled as Bresti Ram vs. State of H.P. decided on 20.4.1999 and held that since the land had been granted to the petitioner by way of nautor he was not entitled to any compensation.

It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that this award is totally illegal inasmuch as no compensation has been awarded to the petitioner. On the other hand on behalf of the State it is contended that in view of the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in Bresti Ram (supra) the petitioner was not entitled to any compensation. Another contention raised on behalf of the State is that this writ petition is not maintainable because of the fact that the petitioner has not availed efficacious alternative remedy available to him u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 31.7.2007. The petitioner has made an averment that this award was never communicated to his father or to him and he came to know about the award only on 27.1.2010 and applied for the copy on the same date which was supplied to him on 9.2.2010. Even if the award was not communicated to him the remedy which is available is not of filing a writ petition but of filing reference petition u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The same grounds could have been raised in a petition filed u/s 18 to explain the limitation or to ask for condonation of delay in filing the reference petition. The question whether the petitioner or his father had the knowledge about the award is a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided in writ proceedings and can only be decided if evidence is led. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy available to him. It is, however, made clear that it shall be open to the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and he may, while doing so, file an application u/s 5 seeking condonation of delay which application shall be decided on its own merit after hearing all the concerned parties.