KRISHAN KUMAR SOOD Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dtd. 27/9/2019, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (C) (Rural) cum Competent authority Land Acquisition (NHAI), Shimla (in short "CALA"), whereby objections having been filed by the petitioners herein under Ss. 3H and 3H(4) of the National Highways Act (in short "the Act"), to award No. 21/2015 dtd. 12/10/2015 and award No. 21-F dtd. 24/7/2018, passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, came to be dismissed, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for following relief:

(2.) Precisely, the grouse of the petitioners, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners is that once objections under Ss. 3H and 3H(4) of the Act, were filed by the petitioners qua the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, specifically stating therein that they being tenants are also entitled to compensation payable to owner of the property, CALA had no option but to refer the dispute to the Principal Civil Court/District Judge, who, after having ascertained entitlement, is also competent to make order with regard to apportionment, if any.

(3.) For having bird's eye view, certain undisputed facts as emerge from the record, are that building known as Shekhar Bhawan situated at Dhalli, Bhattakufar situate at Dhalli Bye-pass road, NH-22, having five floors and additional parking owned by respondent No.4, came to be acquired by NHAI for construction of road and qua that, compensation vide two separate awards came to be awarded in favour of owner of the building, as detailed herein above. Prior to initiation of acquisition proceedings, allegedly, the petitioners herein were given space in the building as detailed herein above on monthly rent of Rs.1, 30,000.00 for a period of fifteen years. Rent agreement was duly registered with the Registrar, Shimla, and pursuant to same, petitioners were carrying out their business, but once factum with regard to acquisition of property in question came to their notice, coupled with the fact that they have already spent huge amount for improvement of the property, they filed objections under Ss. 3H and 3H(4) of the Act for apportionment. In the aforesaid objections, petitioners claimed that respondent No.4 was though in the knowledge of the initiation of acquisition proceedings at the time of leasing out the property to them but yet chose not to disclose such fact to the petitioners, as a result thereof, they invested huge amount for carrying out their business. Petitioners claimed that they spent almost Rs.1.5 crores for renovation of the property and as such, need to be compensated from the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the owner/respondent No.4. However, CALA rejected the prayer made by the petitioners on the ground that as per documents made available to the revenue authorities as well as NHAI, respondent No.4 is the owner of the property and as such, dispute, if any, with regard to apportionment can only be decided by the competent court of law. In the aforesaid backdrop, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings.