Sh. Parmanand Kanwar vs State of Himachal Pradesh

V.K. Ahuja, J.—The petitioner has filed the present writ petition and he has claimed the following relief''s in this petition:-

(a) A Writ of Prohibition by directing the respondents, not to interfere in and with the land of the petitioner, by issuing a purported notification under the Land Acquisition Act, in order to cover up their misdeeds and illegal and unconstitutional act on their part, which is resulting undue hardship and fragmentation of the petitioners land which will frustrate the object and purpose of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) Act, 1971.

(b) Also, a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents not to forcibly enter, all or any part of the property of the petitioner, by way of construction of a road or any other such encumbrance.

(c) And, issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the notifications (annexure P-6(a) to (e) by declaring them as illegal, unjust and also unconstitutional.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

In Para-5 of the reply filed by respondent No. 2 it has been pleaded that the objections were filed by the petitioner as well as by other people of the locality u/s 5A of the Land Acquisition Act and Land Acquisition Collector gave full opportunity to the people who gave their objections qua the acquisition. Thereafter, award has also been passed by the respondents. The relief claimed by the petitioner was prior to the issuance of the notification u/s 4 and there was no allegations that the Land Acquisition Collector had not considered the objections filed by the petitioner. In regard to the pleadings of the petitioner that some donated land was available, it has been pleaded in Para-6 that the said land was not found suitable and that question was also considered by the Land Acquisition Collector.

Learned counsel for the petitioner to substantiate his plea that the question of public purpose can be considered by the Court and as to whether there is any interest or not, he has placed reliance upon the decision in Bangalore City Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, In that case, the question being considered was as to whether there was prior approval of the State Government for initiating acquisition for Cooperative Society and as to whether there was approval of the State Government of housing scheme framed by society preceding acquisition u/s 3 of the Act.

Reliance was also placed upon the decision in Raghbir Singh Sehrawat Vs. State of Haryana and Others, where the question involved was as to the matters to be considered by State before acquiring land, type of land and effect on persons who would be deprived of land. In that case there was large-scale acquisition of agricultural land ostensibly for public purpose in violation of mandatory procedure and rules of natural justice.

Reliance was also placed upon the decision in Darshan Lal Nagpal (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others, wherein the question was to be in regard to the invocation of urgency provisions for acquisition of the land.

All these decisions were based on the facts and circumstances of each case, which were considered by their Lordships and orders were passed. The petitioner has filed the present petition before acquisition proceedings were started and the writ petition was filed against the State to restrain them from acquiring the land and that the acquisition proceedings be stayed. The land has now been acquired and the award has also been passed. However, there are no such pleadings to set aside the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector has been made and as such, the prayers made by the petitioner cannot be accepted and therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.