NATER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
LAWS(HPH)-1997-3-39
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on March 21,1997

NATER SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Respondents




JUDGEMENT

M SRINIVASAN, J. - (1.)The petitioner is a co owner alongwith three other persons with reference to land in Khasra No 765/4, 765/2 and 775. They were acquired by the State for construction of Bus stand pursuant to a notification issued on 610 -1977 An award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 31 -7 -1981. One co -sharer by name Jaishi Ram sought for a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act The matter was referred to the Court of District Judge, Mandi The reference was disposed of by the District Judge by judgment dated 15 -3 -1984 The compensation awarded by the Collector was enhanced in so far as the applicant before the District Judge is concerned.
(2.)The petitioner herein was impleaded as the 3rd respondent in the Reference petition before the District Judge, After the District Judge disposed of the proceedings, an appeal was filed in this Court in 1984 by the State of Himachal Pradesh and the Himachal Road Transport Corporation, who were the beneficiaries of the acquisition. In the appeal also, the petitioner herein was the 2nd respondent. Inspite of the petitioner having been a party in the Reference proceeding as well as the appeal, the petitioner did not choose to take any appropriate proceeding either before the Collector or before the District Judge to claim enhancement of the compensation for his share of the land. He did not avail of the provisions of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the Collector passed an award in 1981. The District Judge in his judgment in the Reference proceeding held in paragraph 21 under Issue No 3 that the Reference being only at the instance of Jaishi Ram, the petitioner and the other two persons could not claim enhanced compensation. Inspite of that decision against the petitioner being rendered by the District Judge as early on 15 -3 -1984, the petitioner did not challenge the same by way of an appeal in this Court though he is also a party to the appeal filed by the State, namely, R F A. No. 38 of 1984.
(3.)The prayer of the petitioner that the respondents should be directed to pay him enhanced compensation in respect of his share in the land and also to direct apportionment of the enhanced compensation in respect of the whole land cannot be granted. The petitioner has not availed of the statutory remedies provided under the Land Acquisition Act in the proper time. Having missed the bus, the petitioner has now come to this Court after a period of 10 years since the judgment of the District Judge in the Reference proceeding. This writ petition has been presented in this Court only on 8 -9 -1994. There is no explanation also for the petitioner not approaching this Court earlier.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.