[Land Acquisition Act] Serving Notice To 'Interested Persons' Regarding Passing Of Award Mandatory U/S 12(2): Himachal Pradesh High Court
Seven years after passing of compensation award for land acquisition in Mangu village near Solang, the Himachal Pradesh High Court on Tuesday ordered that the award be referred to the Statutory authority for determination of the compensation. It observed that Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, which mandates notice of passing of the award to the interested persons, was not...
Seven years after passing of compensation award for land acquisition in Mangu village near Solang, the Himachal Pradesh High Court on Tuesday ordered that the award be referred to the Statutory authority for determination of the compensation. It observed that Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, which mandates notice of passing of the award to the interested persons, was not complied with so far as the Petitioner is concerned.
Section 18 of the LA Act makes provision for filing of reference petition within stipulated time to the Collector for determination of the Court, by any person interested who has not accepted the award.
The petitioner said his reference petition could not be moved within prescribed time as he was not made aware of passing of the award as mandated under Section 12.
A bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Ajay Mohan Goel noted that petitioner's reference petition was rejected despite Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (read with Section 18 of the LA Act) which relaxes the period prescribed for moving Reference petition by one year.
Respondent-Land Acquisition Collector claimed that Petitioner was in fact served notice of his award under Section 12 of the LA Act.
The Court observed that at the back of the alleged notice under Section 12 of the LA Act, there was an endorsement saying “Sir, refused to accept". This endorsement was signed by one Parmanand and below the signature word “Sathi” was written. The endorsement did not mention as to who refused to accept the notice, who this “Parmanand” was and who the “Sathi” was.
"Therefore, the only prudent conclusion which can be drawn from the perusal of Annexure R-2/2 is that this notice was never served upon the petitioner as it was not mentioned in the endorsement that it was the petitioner upon whom the notice was served and it was he who refused to accept the same. Though it is mentioned in the impugned order that Parmanand was the Revenue Chowkidar, but there is no such endorsement below the signature of Parmanand on the notice."
Moreover, it observed,
"Even if it was to be assumed for the sake of argument that the said notice was impliedly served upon the petitioner on 28.09.2016 on account of his purportedly refused to accept the same, then also as the prayer for Reference alongwith an application under Section 64 of the 2016 Act was filed by the petitioner within a period of one year and about ten days as from 28.09.2016, respondent No.2 (Land Acquisition Collector) ought to have entertained the application as he was empowered to do so in terms of the second proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 64 of the 2013 Act. Respondent No.2 in fact erred in not appreciating that as the petitioner had been deprived of his property by way of compulsory acquisition of his land, the least that he was entitled to, was his Reference being forwarded to the Authority, seeking enhancement of compensation, more so when the same was within the extandable period of limitation prescribed in Section 64 of the 2013 Act."
Accordingly, the Court directed the concerned Land Acquisition Collector to forward the application of the petitioner alongwith the Reference to the Statutory Authority for adjudication of the Reference on merit.
Case Title: Prem Lal Vs State of H.P. & others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 51