IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 177 of 2007. Decided on: March 17, 2010 H.P.S.E.B. and others ….. Appellants. Versus Laber Ram and others …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. For the Appellants : Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General, for respondents No. 2 to 4. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The Electricity Board and their officers have come in appeal, aggrieved by the judgment of learned Single Judge in CWP No. 573 of 206 dated 16th June, 2007. The simple issue raised in the Writ Petition pertains to the claim raised by the owners of the land for compensation in respect of the land taken from them for construction of a road. The Board is aggrieved since the learned Single Judge made the Board also liable to pay the compensation. It is the contention of the Board that the road was constructed by the State for the people and hence, the Board is not liable to pay the compensation. 2 The learned Additional Advocate General, referring to the reply however submits that the road was constructed for the purpose of power project, hence, the Board is liable to pay the compensation. Be that as it may, as far as the acquisition of the property is concerned, it is to be done by the Collector. If it is done for and on behalf of the Company or any such Authority, it is for the acquisitioning Authority, namely, the Collector to issue Notification on their behalf and complete the acquisition proceedings. In other words, the liability of the requisitioning Authority, if any, arises only when the requisition is made by the said entity and on whose behalf the State has put in motion their machinery under the Land Acquisition Act. The inter se dispute between the State and the Electricity Board would not be resolved in the Writ Petition. In case, there was requisition by the Electricity Board to construct a road, it is certainly open to the State to proceed against the Electricity Board and recover the compensation paid or to be paid to the land owners. With the above clarification and direction with regard to the liability as far as the appellants are concerned, direction in the judgment under appeal making the appellants also liable in the impugned judgment is vacated and the appeal is allowed as above. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice March 17, 2010 (Justice R.B. Misra), (rks) Judge.