STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. RAJKUMAR RAJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This and the connected appeal have been filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the award of the learned District Judge, Mahasu, in two references made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

(2.) The Himachal Pradesh Government issued two notifications in October 1967 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act declaring that land in the villages of Shahdhar and Maihgaon in Tehsil of Rampur, District Mahasu was needed, for the purpose of widening the Sarahan-Daranghati road. The two parcels of land belonged to the respondent, Rajkumar Rajinder Singh. Thereafter, on following the further procedure detailed in the land Act the Collector made an award determining the compensation payable to the respondent at Rs. 1,437.50 in respect of the land in village Shahdhar and Rs. 2,831.87 for the land in village Majhgaon. In both cases, the compensation included 15% compulsory acquisition charges. The Collector made an order that the compensation so determined should not be paid over to the respondent without clearance being accorded by the Commissioner (Revenue). The respondent applied in both cases for a reference under Section 18 of the Act and claimed that the compensation determined was inadequate. The Collector filed an objection taking the point that the respondent was not entitled to to any compensation as the land in question had vested in the State under Section 27 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act. The learned District Judge framed a number of issues, including an issue on the question whether the land acquired had vested in the State. On the latter issue he held that the respondent was admittedly holding land the annual land revenue of which exceeded Rs. 125/- and ordinarily his right, title and interest in the land would be deemed to have vested in the State by virtue of Sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the Act. But, the learned District Judge observed, the land fell within the scope of Sub-section (2) of Section 27, which provided that land under the personal cultivation of the land-owner would stand excluded from the operation of Sub-section (1) of Section 27 and would not vest in the State. On the merits of the claim of the respondent for enhanced compensation, he made an award on January 22, 1971 that the compensation awarded by the Collector was adequate and no increase was called for. Against the common award disposing of the two references the State has filed the present appeals,

(3.) It is urged on behalf of the appellant that the learned District Judge has erred in holding that the land acquired in the two villages was covered within the terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 27 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act and therefore had not vested in the State. For the respondent it is urged that the plea is not open to the appellant in proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act that the land has vested in the State as such a plea is foreign to the scope of that Act. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, and we are of opinion that the respondent must succeed.