1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 2786/2009 Date of decision: 20.8.2009 Brij Lal ….Petitioner Vs. Secretary Market Committee & anr ….Respondents. Coram:- The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Acting Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Neel Kamal Shama,Adv. For the respondent Mr. R.K.Bawa, AG with Mr.R.K. Sharma, No.2 Additional Advocate, Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy AG and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. AG. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent No.1 has filed application before the Collector, Sundernagar Sub Division, Sundernagar for removal of illegal encroachment made by the petitioner on the market committee land. Petitioner filed detailed reply to the application on 20.9.1999. 2. In nut shell, case of the petitioner before the learned Collector, Sundernagar Sub Division, Sundernagar was that the land was acquired for BSL project and the award was passed on 31.3.1965. The land was utilized for the construction of BSL canal. The project was constructed by BSL in the year 1975-78. The possession of the land always remained with the petitioner. The learned Collector, Sundernagar, Sub Division, Sundernagar allowed the application preferred by respondent No.1 on 1 Whether reporter of local papers is allowed to see the judgment? 2 19.8.2006/13.7.2006. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Mandi Division. The same was dismissed by him on 4.7.2009. Petitioner has assailed the order passed by Commissioner, Mandi Division on 4.7.2009. 3. Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate, has vehemently argued that the orders passed by Collector, Sundernagar Sub Division, Sundernagar and by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi are not sustainable in the eyes of law. He then argued that though the land stood acquired, however, possession remained with the petitioner. He finally contended that the order passed by Divisional Commissioner is not self contained. Learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of respondents has supported the orders passed by the authorities. 4. We have heard the parties and gone through the contents of the petition. It is admitted fact that petitioner’s predecessor-in- interest were owner of the land. This land was acquired for the construction of BSL canal and the award was made by the Collector on 31.3.1965. The moment the award is passed, land vest in the State government. 5. Their Lordships’ in AIR 1957 SC 344 titled The Fruit & Vegetable Merchants Union Vs. The Delhi Improvement Trust, have held as under: “…….On the other hand, Ss 16 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act (Act 1 of 1894), provide that the property so acquired upon the happening of certain events, shall “vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances”. In the cases contemplated by Ss. 16 and 17 the property acquired becomes the property of Government without any conditions or limitations either as to title or possession. The legislature has made it clear that the vesting of the property is not for any limited purpose or limited duration. 3 6. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as cited above, land stood vested in the Centre government/Punjab Government. The same stood transferred to the State of HP. State of HP has further permitted respondent No.1 to utilize the land for carrying out its statutory duties. PW-1 Ganga Ram and PW-2 Chandermani, Patwari, on the basis of revenue entries, have deposed that khasra numbers in question were encroached upon by the petitioner. Petitioner has also admitted the possession over the suit land. The possession of the petitioner was unauthorized after the land stood acquired and the compensation was paid to the petitioner. Learned Collector has also taken into consideration the consistent revenue entries made in favour of State Government qua ownership. Since the land of the petitioner stood acquired and he has already received the compensation, it was not upon for him to take up the plea of adverse possession. The appellate authority has rightly upheld the orders passed by the Collector, Sundernagar Sub Division, Sundernagar. In normal circumstances, Divisional Commissioner, Mandi ought to have given detailed reasons. However, we have ourselves gone through the detailed order passed by Collector, Sundernagar Sub Division, Sundernagar and we see no infirmity in the orders passed by him. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition, hence the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications. ( R.B. Misra ), ACJ (Rajiv Sharma), J. 20.8.2009(sl) 4