OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Evidently, the respondents have not complied with the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.5060 of 2010 titled Krishan Chand and another vs. State of H.P and others, decided on 11/9/2013.

(2.) Admittedly, Notifications were repeatedly issued under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'Act') but the same lapsed for want of issuance of further Notification(s) under Sec. 6 of the Act. However, in such circumstances, the compensation is now required to be determined, under the new Act i.e. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Since the possession of the land is already with the respondents, therefore, further proceedings now are required to be initiated after compliance of Ss. 21 and 23 of the Act, 2013.

(3.) Learned Advocate General would contend that the compensation is to be assessed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. We find this contention not only to be fallacious, but also not tenable. After all, the respondents cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrongs. The respondents ought to be obliged to this Court for having not initiated the contempt proceedings against them. The State would be well advised to conduct an inquiry in the instant case against the erring official(s), in compliance to the judgment passed by this Court, who have ensured that the Notifications issued repeatedly, under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are lapsed. The State is directed to complete the proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, within a period of one year from today. The personal presence of the Officer present today is dispensed with.