1

     REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4414 OF 2018

[Arising out of SLP (C) No.7981 of 2017]

Shiv Singh & Ors.         .. Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.     .. Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T [

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is filed against the final judgment

and  order  dated  01.11.2016  passed  by  the  High

Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Writ Petition

No. 2159 of 2016 whereby the Division Bench of the

High Court  dismissed the writ  petition filed by the

appellants herein wherein the challenge was made to

the  land  acquisition  proceedings  initiated  by  the

2

respondent-State  for  acquisition  of  the  appellants’

land.  

3) In order to appreciate the issues involved in the

appeal,  few  relevant  facts  need  to  be  mentioned

hereinbelow.

4) The dispute in this case relates to acquisition of

the land belonging to the appellants which is sought

to be acquired under the provisions of the Right to

Fair  Compensation  and  Transparency  in  Land

Acquisition,  Rehabilitation  and  Resettlement  Act,

2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

5) By notification dated 08.12.2015 issued under

Section 11 of the Act, the State of Himachal Pradesh

sought  to  acquire  the  appellants’  land  measuring

around  1-00-49  Hectares  along  with  the  lands  of

other  landowners.  The  acquisition  was  for  public

purpose,  namely,  "construction  of  road  from  Bus

Stand Ruhil to Upper Ruhil via Kuper”.

3

6) It  is  not  in  dispute  that  the  appellants  (writ

petitioners) had filed their objections to the proposed

acquisition on 05.01.2016 (Annexure P-8) well within

the time prescribed under Section 15 of the Act.

7)   Under  the  scheme  of  the  Act,  once  the

objections are filed by the affected landowners,  the

same  are  required  to  be  decided  by  the  Collector

under  Section  15(2)  of  the  Act  after  affording  an

opportunity of  being heard to the landowners, who

submitted their objections and after making further

inquiry, as the Collector may think necessary, he is

required  to  submit  his  report  to  the  appropriate

Government for appropriate action in the acquisition

in question.    

8) In this case, we find that the Collector neither

gave  any  opportunity  to  the  appellants  as

contemplated under Section 15(2) of the Act and nor

submitted any report as provided under Section 15(2)

of  the  Act  to  the  Government  so  as  to  enable  the

4

Government  to  take  appropriate  decision.  In  other

words,  we  find  that  there  is  non-compliance  of

Section 15(2) of the Act by the Collector.  In our view,

it is mandatory on the part of the Collector to comply

with the procedure prescribed under Section 15(2) of

the  Act  so  as  to  make  the  acquisition  proceedings

legal and in conformity with the provisions of the Act.

9) The aforementioned aspect of the case does not

appear to have been taken note of by the High Court,

resulting in dismissal of the appellants’ writ petition

requiring interference by this Court.  

10) Learned counsel  for  the  respondent-State  was

also not able to show from the record that there was

proper compliance of Section 15(2) of the Act by the

Collector. The counter affidavit filed by the State also

does not show any averment to prove this fact.

11) It is for this reason and without going into any

other  issue  arising  in  the  case,  we  are  inclined  to

5

allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment

and allow the appellants’ writ petition in part.   

12) We  hereby  direct  the  respondent  No.2  herein

(Collector,  Winter Field, Shimla-3 HP) to decide the

objections  filed  by  the  appellants  on  05.01.2016

keeping in view the requirements of Section 15(2) of

the Act and pass appropriate orders.  

13)   Let  the  objections  be  decided  within  three

months from the date of this order as an outer limit

uninfluenced by our observations made in the order.

14) With  these  observations  and  directions,  the

appeal stands allowed.

………………………………..J  (R.K. AGRAWAL)

           …..………………………………J.      (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE)

New Delhi, April 25, 2018