DHARM PRAKESH BHARDWAJ Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Essential facts necessary for adjudication of this writ petition are that a notification, dated 18.12.2000, was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 by the Secretary (Power), Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, which was published in the news papers having wide circulation in the area, namely. The Tribune and Amar Ujala, dated 21.12.2000 for acquiring the land of the petitioner. The same was also published in the Gazette on 23.12.2000. A notification, under Sections 6 and 7 of the Land Acquisition Act was also issued by the Secretary (Power), Government of H.P. on 09.10.2001. It was also published in the Indian Express, dated 22.10.2001, Dainik Tribune, dated 23.10.2001 and in the Gazette notification, dated 11.10.2001. Notices were also served upon the land owners under Section- 9 of the Land Acquisition Act on 25.08.2003. All the necessary codal formalities were completed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Land Acquisition Collector, Koldam, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (H.P.) has passed award No. 37 of 2005 vide Annexure P-1. Since the petitioner was not interested in compensation, he moved an application before the learned District Collector on 21.03.2006 for exchange of land. The same was recommended by the District Collector to the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division, Shimla-2 on 26.05.2009. The Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division, Shimla-2 also recommended the case of the petitioner to the State Government on 22.06.2009. However, the fact of the matter is that the case of the petitioner was rejected on 19.12.2009.

(2.) Mr. Dinesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the case of the petitioner is covered under Section 31(3A) inserted vide Himachal Pradesh Act 17 of 1986 w.e.f. 22.7.1986 for exchange of his land in lieu of his private land acquired for Koldam project. He then contended that the case of the petitioner has been strongly recommended by the District Collector and the Divisional Commissioner and the same has been rejected by the Deputy Secretary (Revenue), Government of Himachal Pradesh without passing a speaking order.

(3.) Mr. Virender Verma, learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the petitioner is seeking exchange of land in a separate Mohal. He also contended that it is not mandatory to exchange the land as per Section 31(3A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.