Himachal Pradesh High CourtUnknown vs State Of H.P. & Others on 30 November, 2023Author:Satyen VaidyaBench:Satyen VaidyaIN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,\n                    SHIMLA\n\n                          CWP No. 7163 of 2022 a/w CWP Nos.\n\n\n\n\n                                                       .\n                          3311, 3312, 3313, 3417, 5703, 5704,\n\n\n\n\n\n                          5705, 8006 and 8031 of 2022.\n\n                          Reserved on: 16.10.2023\n\n\n\n\n\n                        Date of decision : 30.11.2023.\n    1.   CWP No. 7163 of 2022\n\n\n\n\n                                   of\n         M/s Ultratech Cement Ltd.                  ...Petitioner.\n                          Versus\n         State of H.P. & others\n                 rt                                 ...Respondents.\n    2.   CWP No. 3311 of 2022\n         Inder Singh                               ...Petitioner\n\n                          Versus\n         State of H.P. & others                    ...Respondents\n\n\n    3.   CWP No. 3312 of 2022\n         Kuldeep Singh                             ...Petitioner\n                          Versus\n\n\n\n\n         State of H.P. & others                    ...Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n\n    4.   CWP No. 3313 of 2022\n         Manjeet Singh                             ...Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n\n                          Versus\n         State of H.P & others                     ...Respondents\n    5.   CWP No. 3417 of 2022\n         Swaran Singh                              ...Petitioner\n                          Versus\n         State of H.P. & others                    ...Respondents\n    6.   CWP No. 5703 of 2022\n         Om Prakash                                ...Petitioner\n                          Versus\n\n\n\n\n                                      ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2023 20:35:24 :::CIS\n                                                 -2-\n\n\n\n          State of H.P. & others                                   ...Respondents\n    7.    CWP No. 5704 of 2022\n          Mast Ram                                                 ...Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n                                                                       .\n                                  Versus\n\n\n\n\n\n          State of H.P. & others                                   ...Respondents\n    8.    CWP No. 5705 of 2022\n\n\n\n\n\n          Munshi Ram                                               ...Petitioner\n                                  Versus\n\n\n\n\n                                             of\n          State of H.P. & others                                   ...Respondents\n    9.    CWP No. 8006 of 2022\n          Ajeet Singh\n                    rt                                             ...Petitioner\n                                  Versus\n          State of H.P. & others                                   ...Respondents\n\n    10.   CWP No. 8031 of 2022\n          Harbans Singh                                            ...Petitioner\n\n\n                                  Versus\n          State of H.P. & others                          ....Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n    Coram:\n\n\n\n\n\n    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.\n\n    Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.\n\n\n\n\n\n    For the petitioner :          Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate, for the\n                                  petitioner in CWP No. 7163 of 2022 and\n                                  for respective respondents in CWP No.\n                                  3311-3313, 3417, 5703, 5704 and 5705\n                                  of 2022.\n\n                                  Mr. Virender Thakur, Advocate, for the\n                                  petitioner(s)   in CWPs Nos. 3311,\n                                  3313, 3417, 5703, 5704, 5705, 8006,\n                                  and 8031 of 2022 and for respondents\n                                  No. 4, 13, 14 and 19 to 23 in CWP No.\n                                  7163 of 2022.\n    1\n          Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?\n\n\n\n\n                                                      ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2023 20:35:24 :::CIS\n                                        -3-\n\n\n\n\n    For the respondents:     Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta and Mr. Pratush\n                             Sharma, Additional Advocate Generals\n                             with Ms. Priyanka Chauhan and Mr.\n\n\n\n\n                                                              .\n                             Rahul     Thakur,     Deputy    Advocate\n\n\n\n\n\n                             Generals, for the respondent-State, in all\n                             the petitions.\n\n\n\n\n\n                             Mr. Nand Lal Chauhan, Advocate, for\n                             respondents No. 5 to 11, 12(i) (iv) (vi) and\n                             15 to 17 in CWP No. 7163 of 2022.\n\n\n\n\n                                     of\n                             Mr. G.D. Verma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr.\n                             Sumit Sharma, Advocate, for respondent\n                             No. 24 in CWP No. 7163 of 2022.\n                    rt\n      Satyen Vaidya, Judge:Since common questions of law and facts are\n\n      involved in these petitions, therefore, the same have been\n\n\n      heard together and are being decided by a common\n\n      judgment.2.          M/S Ultratech Cement ltd. (hereinafter referred\n\n\n\n\n\n      to as 'the Company') is petitioner in CWP No. 7163 of 2022.The Company is involved in manufacturing of cement and\n\n      grinding of the clinker in villages Baga and Bageri in\n\n      District Solan, H.P.3.          CWP Nos. 3311, 3312, 3313, 3417, 5703, 5704,\n\n      5705, 8006 and 8031 of 2022 have been filed by persons\n\n      (hereinafter referred to as 'Oustees') whose land has been\n\n      acquired    by   State    of   H.P.      for      establishment                of::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2023 20:35:24 :::CIS-4-manufacturing unit and provisioning of mining area of the\n\n    Company. The Company has been impleaded as one of the\n\n\n\n\n                                                          .respondents in the set of petitions filed by the 'Oustees'.State of H.P. and its authorities including the Land\n\n\n\n\n\n    Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'the State')\n\n    have been impleaded as respondents by either side.of4.        The case as projected by the Company is that a\n\n    detailed survey was conducted by the Government of\n                 rt\n    Himachal Pradesh in Mangal area of District Solan in the\n\n    year 1999-2000 to explore the presence of lime stone. A\n\n    report was prepared and on its basis, bids were invited for\n\n\n\n    establishment of cement manufacturing plant in the area.M/s Jai Prakash Associates Limited being the successful\n\n\n\n\n    bidder was given consent by the Government of Himachal\n\n\n\n\n\n    Pradesh to establish the cement plant in the year 2004.Since the Government and private lands were required for\n\n    establishment of the manufacturing unit and mining area,\n\n    the private lands were acquired for M/s Jai Prakash\n\n    Associate Limited under the provision ofLand Acquisition\n\n    Act, 1894(for short the 'Act').     A Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Scheme (for short 'R & R Scheme) was prepared::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2023 20:35:24 :::CIS-5-in the year 2005 for the benefit of the 'Oustees' from\n\n    private lands..5.           The Land Acquisition Collector passed the award\n\n\n\n\n\n    underSection 11of the Act on 10.1.2008, whereby 1330-\n\n\n\n\n\n    16 bighas of land was acquired and compensation was\n\n    offered.    The Collector issued possession certificate on\n\n\n\n\n                                   of\n    4.4.2008 in terms ofsection 16of the Act. The possession\n\n    of the acquired land was handed over to M/s Jai Prakash\n                   rt\n    Associate Limited.6.           The Company has acquired all rights and\n\n    liabilities of the aforesaid manufacturing units in June,\n\n\n\n    2017 from its predecessor M/s Jai Prakash Associates\n\n    Limited.7.           Notwithstanding   the      aforesaid           proceedings\n\n\n\n\n\n    undertaken in terms of the Act, certain houses, structures\n\n\n\n\n\n    and trees belonging to private persons in village Bhalag\n\n    and village Samtyari remained without assessment as to its\n\n    value.     It was alleged that the respective owners of the\n\n    houses, structures and trees were not allowing the\n\n    evaluation by use of force.      In order to conclude the\n\n    acquisition proceedings within the statutory period of two::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2023 20:35:24 :::CIS-6-years,   the   Collector   had   announced             the      award        on\n\n    10.1.2008. The factum of absence of evaluation of certain\n\n\n\n\n                                                            .houses, structures and trees was mentioned in the award\n\n\n\n\n\n    with the reasons that had been instrumental in the\n\n\n\n\n\n    inability of the authorities to complete the evaluation\n\n    process.   It is specifically pleaded by the Company that\n\n\n\n\n                                  of\n    respondents No. 4 to 18 (in CWP 7163 of 2022) were\n\n    persons who had not allowed their houses and structures\n                 rt\n    to be evaluated despite the fact that the company had\n\n    deposited the entire compensation amount as per award\n\n    and even some of the private respondents had received the\n\n\n\n    compensation.8.         The Company filed CWP No. 3073 of 2021 before\n\n\n\n\n    this Court, seeking directions against the State to take all\n\n\n\n\n\n    effective steps to get the houses, structures and trees\n\n\n\n\n\n    evaluated, which were subject matter of acquisition in\n\n    terms of award dated 10.1.2008. On 15.9.2021, a Division\n\n    Bench of this Court had passed the following order:-"List   on   27.10.2021.    In    the      meanwhile           State\n               Government shall evaluate the houses and structures\n               etc. of the respondents for which no obstruction or\n               hindrance whatsoever shall be caused by the::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2023 20:35:24 :::CIS-7-respondents as per the assurance given in the open\n                 Court today.".9.           The Collector, taking into account the evaluation\n\n\n\n\n\n    of the left-over houses, structures and trees passed a\n\n\n\n\n\n    supplementary award on 2.5.2022. As per the Company, it\n\n    has deposited the entire amount as per supplementary\n\n\n\n\n                                     of\n    award dated 2.5.2022.10.          The Company has now approached this Court\n                   rt\n    with   the     grievance       that    despite          the       passing           of\n\n    supplementary award and deposit of entire compensation\n\n    amount,      the   'oustees'    were        not      handing          over       the\n\n\n\n    possession of acquired houses, structures and trees. The\n\n    Collector had issued notices underSection 12 (2)of the Act\n\n\n\n\n    to the 'oustees' on 30.5.2022 and 20.6.2022 but without\n\n\n\n\n\n    any result. The private respondents (in CWP 7163 of 2022)\n\n\n\n\n\n    are still holding the possession of such acquired properties\n\n    against the mandate of law and the State being under legal\n\n    mandate to enforce the surrender has failed to fulfill its\n\n    legal obligations.11.          Respondents No. 4, 13, 14, 19 to 23 (in CWP\n\n    7163 of 2022) have objected to the prayer of the Company::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2023 20:35:24 :::CIS-8-on the grounds that the petitioner has not fulfilled its\n\n    commitment(s) under the R & R Scheme.                     It has been\n\n\n\n\n                                                         .submitted that the R & R Scheme was an outcome of a\n\n\n\n\n\n    MOU Executed between Jai Prakash Associates Limited\n\n\n\n\n\n    and the State of Himachal Pradesh.                  The factum of\n\n    retaining the possession of acquired properties has not\n\n\n\n\n                                of\n    been denied by the aforesaid respondents. However, they\n\n    have sought to justify their action on the allegations of\n                rt\n    non-implementation of R & R Scheme by the petitioner. It\n\n    is alleged that the petitioner has not even paid the amount\n\n    of compensation enhanced by the reference Court underSection 18of the Act.    It is further submitted that the\n\n    aforesaid respondents have also filed writ petitions for the\n\n\n\n\n    implementation of R & R Scheme against the State as also\n\n\n\n\n\n    the petitioner, which were pending before this Court.12.       Respondents 5 to 11 and 15 to 17 (in CWP 7163\n\n    of 2022) have also raised separate objections to the claim\n\n    of the Company.    The acquisition proceedings have been\n\n    alleged to be defective for not following the procedure\n\n    underPart-VII of the Act. Violation of Rule 4 of the Land\n\n    Acquisition Company Rules, 1963 has also been alleged.::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2023 20:35:24 :::CIS-9-The right of the State and the Company to take possession\n\n    of the acquired properties from the aforesaid 'oustees' has\n\n\n\n\n                                                          .also been challenged on the ground that R & R Scheme\n\n\n\n\n\n    had   not    been   implemented      and     the      Company            had\n\n\n\n\n\n    alternative remedy of filing suit for possession.                    It has\n\n    further been submitted that due to the acts of omission\n\n\n\n\n                                 of\n    and commission on part of the Company, large scale\n\n    damage was caused to the properties of the 'oustees'\n                  rt\n    between the year 2006-2015, for which, no steps were\n\n    taken for rehabilitation and re-settlement of affected\n\n    persons. As per the aforesaid 'oustees', neither plots were\n\n\n\n    allotted to them nor direct employment was provided as per\n\n    the R & R Scheme and for such reason they were not liable\n\n\n\n\n    to hand over the possession to the Company till the R & R\n\n\n\n\n\n    Scheme was fully implemented.13.         The State in its reply has taken a stand that the\n\n    Collector has already taken all the actions as permitted\n\n    under law.    In case the Company is not able to get the\n\n    possession of acquired properties, it was open to the\n\n    Company to take recourse to appropriate remedies under\n\n    law and the State authorities cannot be made an::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2023 20:35:24 :::CIS-10-instrument to forcibly dispossess the 'oustees'. Precisely,\n\n    the state has made averments to the following effects:-."It is further pertinent to submit here that the\n\n\n\n\n\n              possession undersection 16of the act qua the\n              acquired land related to the present acquisition has\n\n\n\n\n\n              already been delivered to the petitioner due to which\n              mutation stood attested in their favour. The replying\n\n\n\n\n                                    of\n              respondents have no authority under any law to run\n              over the local residents/private respondent to vacate\n              their acquired land being a welfare state as the\n                rt\n              petitioner desired.   The petitioner has full liberty to\n              take appropriate action as per law against the private\n\n              respondents in case the acquired land is illegally\n              occupied by the private respondents despite the\n              lawful acquisition.     The Authorities below, after\n\n\n\n              taking into consideration the law and order situation\n              of the area and during the pendency of different writ\n\n\n\n\n              petitions as filed against the present supplementary\n\n\n\n\n\n              award, cannot act illegally on the pretext of petitioner\n              company to use any forceful measures against the\n\n\n\n\n\n              local residents to vacate their acquired land for which\n              they have never even received the compensation\n              amount."14.       The Company has filed rejoinder to the reply of\n\n    the state. It has been pointed out that under a negotiated\n\n    settlement, the provisions of R & R Scheme were modified\n\n    to the extent that the company had agreed to pay Rs.::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2023 20:35:24 :::CIS-11-Eleven Lakhs to each affected family. The Company had\n\n    deposited the entire amount in terms of negotiated\n\n\n\n\n                                                          .settlement, but it was not being delivered the possession of\n\n\n\n\n\n    the acquired properties, which adversely affected its mining\n\n\n\n\n\n    operations and consequential causing huge losses.15.       In the other set of petitions (CWP Nos. 3311,\n\n\n\n\n                                of\n    3312, 3313, 3417, 5703, 5704, 5705, 8006 and 8031 of\n\n    2022), the 'Oustees' are seeking directions against the\n                 rt\n    Company and the State to implement the R&R Scheme.The 'Oustees' have claimed parity with the case of one Shri\n\n    Brij Lal.It has been submitted by the 'Oustees' that Shri\n\n\n\n    Brij Lal had filed CWP 4247 of 2012 before this Court,\n\n    which was disposed of vide order dated 17.9.2019 and\n\n\n\n\n    directions were issued to the Deputy Commissioner Solan\n\n\n\n\n\n    to decide the representation of Shri Brij Lal. In result Shri\n\n\n\n\n\n    Brij Lal has been paid a sum of Rs. 34 lakhs by the\n\n    Company in lieu of implementation of R&R Scheme. The\n\n    'Oustees' have also sought to protect their possession over\n\n    the acquired land till the R&R Scheme was similarly\n\n    implemented in their cases also.::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2023 20:35:24 :::CIS-12-16.       I have heard the learned counsel for the parties\n\n    and have also gone through the record carefully..17.       It is not in dispute that the acquisition of private\n\n\n\n\n\n    lands for the company to establish a cement plant in\n\n\n\n\n\n    Mangal area of Solan District was undertaken by the State\n\n    of Himachal Pradesh under the provisions of the Act. The\n\n\n\n\n                                of\n    Collector had passed the award on 10.1.2008, which was\n\n    followed by another award dated 2.5.2022.rt                                              The dispute,\n\n    however, as emerges from the rival stands of the parties\n\n    firstly is as regards the implementation of R & R Scheme,\n\n    secondly the legality of the stand adopted by the private\n\n\n\n    respondents and lastly the role of the State Government in\n\n    the situation that has arisen.18.       The 'oustees' have not denied the acquisition of\n\n\n\n\n\n    those properties qua which they are objecting to deliver the\n\n\n\n\n\n    possession. Though, the 'oustees' have agitated the issue\n\n    of non-implementation of R & R Scheme by the Company,\n\n    but they appear to maintain different and divergent views\n\n    with regard to the extent of its non-implementation.Respondents No. 5 to 11 and 15 to 17(in CWP Nos. 3311,\n\n    3312, 3313, 3417, 5703, 5704, 5705, 8006 and 8031 of::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2023 20:35:24 :::CIS-13-2022)have made a reference to the fact that they have not\n\n    been provided the plots and direct employment, which has\n\n\n\n\n                                                          .adversely affected the prospects of their future generations.As per the stand of the Company after a negotiated\n\n\n\n\n\n    settlement a decision had been taken to pay a sum of Rs.Eleven Lakhs to each of the affected families against all the\n\n\n\n\n                                of\n    aspects of the R & R Scheme.             As noticed above, the\n\n    'Oustees' which includes some of the private respondents\n                 rt\n    in CWP 7163 of 2022 have filed the other set of writ\n\n    petitions being CWP Nos. 3311, 3312, 3313, 3417, 5703,\n\n    5704, 5705, 8006 and 8031 of 2022, seeking directions\n\n\n\n    against the State and the Company to implement the R & R\n\n    Scheme in its entirety.       Though the 'Oustees' have\n\n\n\n\n    specifically admitted the fact that as a result of a\n\n\n\n\n\n    negotiated settlement between the parties, the Collector\n\n\n\n\n\n    had declared the payment of Rs. Eleven Lakhs per affected\n\n    family as a substitute for all the measures required to be\n\n    undertaken by the company under R & R Scheme,\n\n    however, they have now raised their claims to be treated in\n\n    parity with Shri Brij Lal, who according to the 'oustees' has::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2023 20:35:24 :::CIS-14-been paid a sum of Rs. 34 lakhs by the Company in lieu of\n\n    all his claims of resettlement and rehabilitation..19.          As regards the right of the 'Oustees' to get the\n\n\n\n\n\n    benefit   under     R   &   R   Scheme,           undeniably,             their\n\n\n\n\n\n    entitlements will be subject to proof of certain prerequisites\n\n    as contemplated under the scheme. Under Clause 2.2.2 of\n\n\n\n\n                                    of\n    the R & R Scheme, the jurisdiction and authority has been\n\n    vested with the Deputy Commissioner of the district to\n                   rt\n    decide any issue relating to implementation of R & R\n\n    Scheme.      In such view of the matter, the 'Oustees' shall\n\n    have every right to take recourse to appropriate remedy in\n\n\n\n    accordance with law for claiming benefits under the R & R\n\n    Scheme.      Moreover, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n    underArticle 226of the Constitution will not delve upon\n\n\n\n\n\n    and decide the intricate and disputed questions of facts.20.          The next question arises as to legality of the\n\n    disruption caused by oustees in taking over of possession\n\n    of acquired properties and the role of the State in such fact\n\n    situation.21.          It is clear from the stand of the Company as also\n\n    the State that the possession of acquired properties was::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2023 20:35:24 :::CIS-15-taken over by the Collector and a possession certificate was\n\n    also issued.   It is also the fact that the award dated\n\n\n\n\n                                                           .10.1.2008 did not include the payment of compensation to\n\n\n\n\n\n    all the acquired properties, viz. certain houses, structures\n\n\n\n\n\n    and trees which had remained to be evaluated. The import\n\n    of the stand taken by the State is that the Collector was\n\n\n\n\n                                 of\n    supposed to take the possession on papers and it is for the\n\n    Company to take actual possession. The stand so taken by\n                rt\n    the State cannot be countenanced. The possession underSection 16of the Act means the actual possession and not\n\n    a mere paper formality.    Reference in this behalf can be\n\n\n\n    made to the following extract from the judgment passed by\n\n    the Hon'ble Supreme Court inBalwant Narayan Bhagde\n\n\n\n\n    vs. M.D. Bhagwat & others, 1976 (1) SCC 700:-"When a public notice is published at a convenient\n\n\n\n\n\n              place or near the land to be taken stating that the\n              Government intends to take possession of the land,\n              then ordinarily and generally there would be no\n              question of resisting or impeding the taking of\n              possession. Delivery or giving of possession by the\n              owner or the occupant of the land is not required. The\n              Collector can enforce the surrender of the land to\n              himself undersection 47of the Act if impeded in.\n              taking possession. On publication of the notice under::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2023 20:35:24 :::CIS-16-section (1) claims to compensation for all interests in\n        the land has to be made; be it the interest of the\n        owner or of a person entitled to the occupation of the\n\n\n\n\n                                                      .land. On the taking of possession of the land\n\n\n\n\n\n        undersection 16or 17 (1) it vests absolutely in the\n        Government free from all encumbrances.                         It   is,\n\n\n\n\n\n        therefore, clear that taking of possession within the\n        meaning ofsection 16or 17(1) means taking of\n\n\n\n\n                              of\n        possession on the spot. It is neither a possession on\n        paper nor a "symbolical" possession as generally\n        understood in Civil Law. But the question is what is\n          rt\n        the mode of taking possession?The Actis silent on\n        the point. Unless possession is taken by the written\n\n        agreement of the party concerned the mode of taking\n        possession obviously would be for the authority to go\n\n\n        upon the land and to do some act which would\n        indicate that the authority has taken possession of\n        the land. It may be in the form of a declaration by\n\n\n\n\n        beat of drum or otherwise or by hanging a written\n\n\n\n\n\n        declaration on the spot that the authority has taken\n        possession of the land. The presence of the owner or\n\n\n\n\n\n        the occupant of the land to effectuate the taking, of\n        possession is not necessary. No further notice beyond\n        that undersection 9(1)of the act: is required. When\n        possession has been taken, the owner or the\n        occupant   of   the   land      is     dispossessed.            Once\n        possession has been taken the land vests in the\n        Government."::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2023 20:35:24 :::CIS-17-22.       The possession under the Act has far reaching\n\n    consequences. It is from the date of taking possession that\n\n\n\n\n                                                            .many of the implications involving payment of interest\n\n\n\n\n\n    arise underSections 23,28and34of the Act.                        Viewed\n\n\n\n\n\n    from another angle, the acquisition under the Act is done\n\n    for a specific purpose and such purpose can be achieved\n\n\n\n\n                                  of\n    on acquiring the actual possession of the land. The very\n\n    purpose of acquisition is rendered otiose in case the actual\n                 rt\n    possession is not delivered to the beneficiary.23.       The avoidance on part of the State to fulfill its\n\n    legal obligation of taking over the possession of acquired\n\n\n\n    properties under the Act appears either to be in ignorance\n\n    of the express provisions of law or a mere pretence for\n\n\n\n\n    some other purpose best known to it.24.Section 47of the Act reads as under:-"47 Magistrate to enforce surrender.                          If the\n              Collector is opposed or impeded in taking possession\n              under this Act of any land, he shall, if a Magistrate,\n              enforce the surrender of the land to himself, and, if\n              not a Magistrate, he shall apply to a Magistrate or\n              (within the towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay)\n              to the Commissioner of Police and such Magistrate or\n              the Commissioner (as the case may be) shall enforce\n              the surrender of the land to the Collector."::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2023 20:35:24 :::CIS-18-25.        In the case in hand, the Collector is none else\n\n    than the Sub Divisional Magistrate of the area and thus he\n\n\n\n\n                                                            .is fully competent to get the surrender of possession of\n\n    acquired land. There is nothing in the provisions of the Act\n\n\n\n\n\n    which may empower or vest the 'Oustees' with a right to\n\n\n\n\n                                   of\n    obstruct   the   taking   of   possession          of     the      acquired\n\n    properties. Their action in doing so is completely illegal.rt\n    The Collector is under legal obligation to get the surrender\n\n    of possession of acquired properties by exercising the\n\n    power underSection 47of the Act.26.        The objection of some of the oustees as to\n\n    legality of entire acquisition proceedings undertaken by the\n\n\n\n\n    State, the same need not detain this Court any longer for\n\n\n\n\n\n    the simple reason that the issue stands already decided by\n\n\n\n\n\n    this Court vide judgment dated 23.6.2016 passed in CWP\n\n    No. 912 of 2007 titledMunshi Ram & others vs. State of\n\n    H.P. & othersalong with connected matters.27.In light of above discussion, the petition (CWP\n\n    7163 of 2022 tiltedM/S Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs State of\n\n    H.P. and othersis allowed.            The respondent No.3 is\n\n    directed to get surrender of possession of those of acquired::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2023 20:35:24 :::CIS-19-properties which still are occupied by the 'Oustees' by\n\n    taking recourse toSection 47of the Act.                    The entire\n\n\n\n\n                                                          .proceedings in terms of this judgment be completed by the\n\n\n\n\n\n    Collector concerned within three months from today and\n\n\n\n\n\n    report compliance to this Court.28.         CWP Nos. 3311, 3312, 3313, 3417, 5703, 5704,\n\n\n\n\n                                 of\n    5705, 8006 and 8031 of 2022 are disposed of with the\n\n    liberty reserved to the 'Oustees' (petitioners in said\n                  rt\n    petitions) to approach Deputy Commissioner, Solan with\n\n    respect to their alleged claims under R&R Scheme and on\n\n    being    approached     by   the     'Oustees'           the       Deputy\n\n\n\n    Commissioner, Solan will decide their respective claims\n\n    within six months from the date of receipt of claim(s).29.         All the petitions are accordingly disposed of so\n\n\n\n\n\n    also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.List for compliance on 15.3.2024.(Satyen Vaidya)\n    30th November, 2023                           Judge\n            (kck)::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2023 20:35:24 :::CIS