1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. C.W.P No. 858 of 20007 Date of Decision: 7th May, 2011. Rakesh Kumar & others …..Petitioners. Versus State of H.P & others. …..Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner: Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mrs. Ruma Kaushik, Addl.Advocate General. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral). The petitioners have prayed for following reliefs: “ 1). That appropriate orders and directions may be issued against respondents to produce entire record in relation to aforesaid dispute an regarding acquisition of land and for payment of amount of compensation. 2). Appropriate orders and directions may be issued to the respondents that they should not deprive the petitioner and all other similarly situated persons of their land without payment of amount of compensation and that the acquisition proceedings should be finalised and amount of compensation be paid in accordance with law.” 2. In the supplementary affidavit dated 12-8-2009 filed by respondent No. 2, following averments are made : 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 “2). In this behalf it is respectfully submitted that the respondent while filing the reply to the CWP during Sep. 2007 it has specifically stated that the respondents were already in the process of acquisition of the land and had issued Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act during 2003. The notification under Section 6 & 7 could not be issued because of the lapse of time. The replying respondent has further stated that the department has prepared fresh papers for Land acquisition and was in the process of issuing Notification under Section 17(4) (Compulsory Acquisition) and had forwarded the papers to the Land Acquisition Collector, Shimla on 24.8.2007. The Land Acquisition Collector, Shimla prepared revenue papers and submitted the documents to the Executive Engineer vide letter dated 28-1-2009. The Superintending Engineer submitted the papers to the Chief Engineer(s) vide letter dated 20.3.2009 and it was found that Land Acquisition Collector has not submitted the inescapability, land less certificate and general certificate. Therefore, the case was again taken up with the Distt. Collector Shimla for issuance of the certificates. The Distt.Collector vide letter dated 5-8-2009 has intimated that two of the co- sharer i.e. Sh. Ram Krishan and Bal Krishan has mortgaged the land in question with the UCO Bank, Kufri during 2005 and has raised the loan of one Lakh from the Bank on the said land. Therefore, inescapability certificate can not issued till the realization of the Bank loan. A copy of the letter is annexed as Annexure R-AI. 3. That it is gathered from the record that the petitioner played a trick on the one hand has claimed compensation for acquisition of the land in the present writ petition and on the other raised a loan of Rs. one 3 Lakh from UCO Bank on 16-12-2005 through other two co sharers after the start of Land acquisition proceedings during 2003. This fact has been concealed by the petitioner from this Hon’ble High Court as the loan stood raised in 2005 and the petition was filed in 2007. The raising of loan incapacitated the Distt. Collector to issue inescapability certificate, therefore, the proceedings of land acquisition under section 17(4) is hampered and cannot be completed till the loan is liquidated and the necessary required certificate is issued by the competent authority. 4. That it is stated that non-issuance of inescapability certificate by the competent authority is leading to delay in the land acquisition proceedings. The petitioner/co- sharer are required to liquidate the loan so that the inescapability certificate is issued by the revenue authority so that land is acquired under Section 17(4) of the Act. The department is in the process of acquire the land under Section 17(4) i.e. compulsory acquisition which takes normally shorter time to about two years that the land acquisition under Section 4. Therefore, the directions are required to be issued to the petitioner and co-sharer to liquidate the loan so that the process is completed at the earliest.” 3. According to Mr. Romesh Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners the entire amount of loan stands repaid. He has also placed on record certificate dated 16-7-2009 to this effect, a copy of which is handed over to learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The affidavit was filed in the year 2009. There are no positive instructions forth coming on behalf of the respondents. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondents to 4 complete the acquisition process, if not already completed as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law and preferably within a period of 6 months. 5. Petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol),Judge. May 7, 2011 (Priti)