Himachal Pradesh High Court
Council Of Scientific And Industrial … vs State Of H. P. & Ors on 28 February, 2026
2026:HHC:5868-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
LPA No. 197 of 2016 a/w LPA Nos. 198
.
to 206 of 2016
Date of decision: 28.02.2026
1. LPA No. 197 of 2016
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) & Anr.
...Appellants.
of
Versus
State of H. P. & Ors. ...Respondents
2. LPA No. 198 of 2016
rt
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) & Anr.
...Appellants.
Versus
State of H. P. & Ors. ...Respondents
3. LPA No. 199 of 2016
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) & Anr.
...Appellants.
Versus
State of H. P. & Ors. ...Respondents
4. LPA No. 200 of 2016
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) & Anr.
...Appellants.
Versus
State of H. P. & Ors. ...Respondents
5. LPA No. 201 of 2016
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) & Anr.
...Appellants.
Versus
State of H. P. & Ors. ...Respondents
6. LPA No. 202 of 2016
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) & Anr.
...Appellants.
Versus
State of H. P. & Ors. ...Respondents
::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 20:33:36 :::CIS
2
2026:HHC:5868-DB
7. LPA No. 203 of 2016
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) & Anr.
...Appellants.
.
Versus
State of H. P. & Ors. ...Respondents
8. LPA No. 204 of 2016
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) & Anr.
...Appellants.
Versus
State of H. P. & Ors. ...Respondents
of
9. LPA No. 205 of 2016
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) & Anr.
...Appellants.
Versus
rt
State of H. P. & Ors. ...Respondents
10. LPA No. 206 of 2016
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) & Anr.
...Appellants.
Versus
State of H. P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Bipin C. Negi, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Appellants: Mr. Het Ram Thakur, Advocate, for the
appellants, in all the appeals.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate
General, for respondents-State in all the
appeals.
Mr. N. K. Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Karan Sharma, Advocate, for respondent
No. 3 in LPA Nos. 197 & 201 of 2016,
respondent No. 3(a) in LPA No. 202 of
2016, respondents No. 4 to 6 and 16(f) in
LPA Nos. 203 & 205 of 2016 and for
respondent Nos. 4 to 6 in LPA No. 206 of
2016
::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 20:33:36 :::CIS
3
2026:HHC:5868-DB
Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate, for Mr.
Pradeep Verma, Advocate for respondents
.
No. 3, 4 and 8 in LPA No. 198 of 2016,
respondent No. 3 in LPA No. 199 of 2016,
respondent No. 3, 5 and 8 in LPA No. 200
of 2016, respondents No. 9(a) to 9(f), 10,
12 to 15, 17, 19 to 21 in LPA Nos. 203 &
205 of 2016 and for respondents No. 9(a)
to 9(f) and 10 to 15 in LPA No. 206 of 2016.
of
Mr. K. R. Thakur, Advocate, for proposed
LRs No. 22(a) to 22(e) in LPA Nos. 203 &
205 of 2016 and for respondent No. 17 (e)
in LPA No. 206 of 2016.
rt
G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)
The present set of appeals are directed against the
common order of the learned Single Judge whereby 10 writ petitions
lead case whereof was CWP No. 85 of 2008, titled as Council of
Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) & Anr. vs. State of
Himachal Pradesh & Ors., filed by the present appellants, were
dismissed on 22.09.2016.
2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions by
placing reliance upon Section 24 of The Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013, which came into force on 01.01.2014, by holding that since
the award had been passed on 08.07.1966 under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, but the possession had not been taken, therefore, by virtue
of Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 the proceedings as
::: Downloaded on – 06/03/2026 20:33:36 :::CIS
4
2026:HHC:5868-DB
such had lapsed by application of law as one of the conditions in the
said proviso had not been fulfilled.
.
3. Reliance was placed upon the judgments of the Apex
Court in Velaxan Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors., (2015) 4 SCC
325; The Working Friends Cooperative House Building Society
Ltd. vs. The State of Punjab & Ors. JT 2015 (9) SC 357; Pawan
of
Kumar Aggarwal vs. State of Punjab & Ors. JT 2016 (4) SC 178;
DDA vs. Raman Grover & Ors. JT 2016(5) SC 196; Shashi Gupta &
rt
Anr. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. JT 2016 (5) SC 196 and Delhi
Development Authority vs. Reena Suri & Ors. JT 2016 (5) SC 291,
and it was accordingly held that once the Apex Court as such had
decided the legal issue and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was
replaced with Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the provisions
of Section 24(2) of the Act came to the rescue of the private
respondents and resultantly interference was not done in the orders
passed by the Collector on 28.05.2007, 18.06.2007 and 16.11.2010.
4. Counsel for the appellants has argued on the strength of
the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Indore
Development Authority vs. Manohar Lal & Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129,
that subsequently the judgment in Velaxan Kumar‘s case (supra) was
specifically over-ruled and it has been held that compensation if has
been deposited, then there is no lapse of proceedings and both the
::: Downloaded on – 06/03/2026 20:33:36 :::CIS
5
2026:HHC:5868-DB
conditions have to be satisfied and the word ‘or’ has to be read as ‘and’
and not ‘or’ and the twin requirements are cumulative and conjunctive
.
in nature.
5. Reliance can be placed upon paragraph 366.3, wherein it
has been specifically held that if compensation has been paid and the
possession has not been taken, then there is no lapse. The said
of
paragraph reads as under:-
“366.3 The word ‘or’ used in Section 24(2) between possession
and compensation has to be read as ‘nor’ or as ‘and’. The
rt
deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section24(2) of the Act of 2013 takes place where due to inaction of
authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the
said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor
compensation has been paid. In other words, in casepossession has been taken, compensation has not been paid
then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid,possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.”
6. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion
that the view taken by the learned Single Judge as such is not liable to
be sustained since the law declared by the Apex Court is to the
contrary now and the judgment in Indore Development Authority
(supra) was passed subsequent to the passing of the judgment by the
learned Single Judge.
7. The issue now remains as to whether the orders passed
by the Collector on 28.05.2007, 18.06.2007 and 16.11.2010, are liable
::: Downloaded on – 06/03/2026 20:33:36 :::CIS
6
2026:HHC:5868-DB
to be sustained, which was subject matter of challenge in the civil writ
petitions filed.
.
8. Keeping in view the background as such of the litigation,
we are of the considered opinion that the land owners-respondents had
perfected their title by way of adverse possession and the present
appellants had failed to institute the proceedings within the prescribed
of
period to take possession in accordance with law despite knowing the
fact that having the benefit of acquisition of land in their favour and the
rt
award dated 08.07.1966, which was on the basis of the notification
issued on 04.01.1966. Once they had not taken possession as per the
terms of the award, which was to be within six weeks from the date of
the award and took steps after 30 years, the respondents had acquired
the right to the title on the basis of adverse possession. The relevant
portion of the award reads as under:-
“The ownership of some buildings occupied by the tenants is
disputed by the land owners and the tenants. Necessary
apportionment in this respect has been made by me afternecessary enquiries at the spot. The compensation due to
tenants and interested persons will be paid out of the allocation
of the land owners who contest the ownership.
Compensation for fruit trees, standing crops and change of
residence as well as loss of business will be paid to the tenants
out of the allocation of the land owners under whom the tenants
work.
There are 18 buildings occupied by the land owners and 70
buildings occupied by the tenants for which compensation is to
be paid to the interested persons. The possession of these::: Downloaded on – 06/03/2026 20:33:36 :::CIS
7
2026:HHC:5868-DBbuildings will be given after 6 weeks of the announcement of
the award. It can be a possibility that the owners or occupiers.
remove material of the building within this gap of six weeks. In
order to ensure that the buildings are intact, till the taking over
of their possession, compensation of the buildings will be paid
to the interested persons on the date when the acquiringdepartment is quite in a position to look after these acquired
buildings and this date will be within six weeks of theof
announcing of the award. If it is found by the acquiring
department that the material of any building is removed before
taking over possession, the value of this building will be re-
assessed by the P.W.D. and the deficiency found in the value
rt
of the buildings already assessed will be made good out of the
allocation of the person interested who is paid compensation ofthat building and he will be paid less amount after deducting the
value of the material.
Date of possession
The possession of waste, arable and land under tea bushes will
be given immediately after making payment of compensation.
Building will be got vacated after six weeks of the
announcement of the award. The land owners are allowed 4months to pull out the tea factory machine from the date of
announcement of award whereafter the possession of factory
premises will vest with the acquiring department.”
9. It is not disputed that the first proactive steps as such after
the passing of the award dated 08.07.1966 was only taken by filing a
suit for possession of the land and the house in question and also
seeking permanent injunction against the defendants on 29.04.1989,
who are the private respondents herein, for restraining other from
raising any construction on the suit land.
::: Downloaded on – 06/03/2026 20:33:36 :::CIS
8
2026:HHC:5868-DB
10. In the plaint itself, the plea taken was that the present
appellants is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act
.
and the owners of the land, the details of which were given, the
acquisition had been of the year 1966 for establishment of National
Biological Research Institute at Palampur. The compensation had been
duly deposited and disbursed to the owners and other occupants
of
including the predecessor-in-interests of the defendants and the
scheme of establishing the research institute was dropped. In the year
rt
1978, the property was handed over to the Regional Research
Laboratory, Jammu, another constituent unit of CSIR for its research
work etc. and the Laboratory was using only a part of the property. It
was further averred that the defendants in the year 1984 had been
orally asked to vacate the suit land, but they had not done so and then
the suit was filed as they had not vacated the property and were further
wanting to raise constructions. The cause of action was stated to be of
the year, 1984 and it was admitted that there was house also. One of
the plaint reads as under:-
“The plaintiff submits as under:-
1. The plaintiff is a society registered under the societies
registration Act and is the owner of the land incorporated in the
Jamabandi 1983-84, Khata No. 7 Min Khatoni No. 21 Khasra
Nos. 225-256 & 258 qita-3 measuring 0-07-13 hectares situated
in Mohal Holta, Mauza Holta, Tehsil Palampur alongwith the
structure specified in site plan attached Annexure ‘A’. The::: Downloaded on – 06/03/2026 20:33:36 :::CIS
9
2026:HHC:5868-DBNational Biological Research Institute was to be a constituent of
Council of Scientific & Industrial Research, Plaintiff Council.
.
2. That earlier this land and house mentioned above in para-I of
the plaint to be further termed as suit property was a part of the
Holta Tea Estate, Palampur alongwith other land and buildings.
3. That in the year 1966, the plaintiff wanted to establish
National Biological Research Institute at Palampur and had
asked the Punjab Government to acquire the land in Holta Teaof
Estate, as Distt. Kangra formed a part of State of Punjab at that
time.
4. That compensation was awarded to the owners and other
occupants of any part of the acquired property by Revenue
rt
Asstt. Kangra at Dharamshala, exercising the powers of
Collector, Kangra under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 whichwas duly deposited in the Treasury and all the owners and the
occupants received their payments of the compensation for all
the rights whatever they had in the Holta Tea Estate.
5. That regarding the suit land, the compensation was given to
Smt. Waziro predecessor in interest of the present defendants.
Sh. Nathu s/o Smt. Waziro whose name is recorded in the
revenue papers as occupants, had already died.
6. That as the scheme of establishing the National Biological
Research Institute was later dropped and later in the year 1978.
The part of the property was temporarily handed over to
Regional Research Laboratory, Jammu of CSIR for its work and
the laboratory was using only a part of the whole property.
7. That as the plaintiff wanted to establish a Laboratory with its
wider objects and research programme, it established its
Complex at Palampur in 1983. the plaintiff asked the
defendants in 1984 orally to vacate the suit property as all the
land and property were required for the purposes of the plaintiff
Council. Although the defendants orally promised to vacate the
property but they wanted to be given some time as they wanted
::: Downloaded on – 06/03/2026 20:33:36 :::CIS
10
2026:HHC:5868-DB
to make some alternate arrangements in the meantime. But
uptill now they have failed to vacate the possession of the suit
.
property. Hence this suit.
8. That as the plaintiff Council needs the suit property for its
work and the defendants have not vacated the property rather
they are planning to further raise construction for which the
defendants have no right at all. The plaintiff Council is left with
no other alternative but to initiate the legal proceedings against
of
them.
9. That the cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff in 1984
and now in June, 1988 at Mohal Holta, Tehsil Palampur Distt.
Kangra within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
rt
10. That the value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and
jurisdiction as as follows:-
Court fee Jurisdiction
Prayer(a) Rs. 7=80 Rs.23=00
Prayer (b) Rs. 2000=00 Rs. 2000=00
Prayer (c) Rs. 190=00 Rs. 190=00
The value of the house has been fixed as Rs. 2000=00 as it is a
very old and in dilapidated condition.
It is therefore, prayed that a decree as prayed for in the heading
of the plaint may kindly be granted in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defendants with costs.”
11. Thus, in the plaint itself, the present appellants had
admitted the factum that the possession had continued from the year
1966 onwards and they had not taken any proactive steps and they
were aware that defendants and predecessor-in-interest now
represented by as respondents continued to be in a possession which
was apparently adverse and hostile as contention was being raised and
there was categorical admission by the present appellants.
::: Downloaded on – 06/03/2026 20:33:36 :::CIS
11
2026:HHC:5868-DB
12. The suit, however, was dismissed on 30.04.1996 by the
Sub Judge First Class, Palampur, Kangra after framing the issue
.
whether the defendants had become owners of the suit property by
way of adverse possession on the ground of maintainability keeping in
view the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the judgment of the
Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay versus
of
M/s Godrej and Boyce AIR 1987 SC 2421, that the land shall be
deemed to be vested in the government in view of Section 16 and
rt
therefore the Land Acquisition Act was a complete code in itself.
13. No appeal as such was filed against the said decision and
belatedly after three years, the application under Section 16 of the
Land Acquisition Act was preferred before the Collector. The Collector
while passing its first order dated 28.05.2007 (Annexure P-1) came to
the conclusion that person in possession can validly claim possessory
title as against the title of the present appellants and since they had
failed to take possession at the time when the award had been passed,
the application was not maintainable at the belated stage and
dismissed the same. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:-
“From the above discussion and perusal of the arguments put
forth by the Counsel for the parties and record so placed on the
file, the Court has come to the conclusion that the application
has been moved by the party/applicant for taking over the
possession after long for more than 30 years. The applicant
was asked to produce evidence with regard to the actual
possession by the defendant at the time of handing over the::: Downloaded on – 06/03/2026 20:33:36 :::CIS
12
2026:HHC:5868-DBsaid possession of the ground as per letter and spirit of Section
16 of the Land Acquisition Act, but in spite of giving of many.
opportunities to do so, the applicant failed to do so. No credible
evidence whatsoever or written has been placed on record
which can support their claim. It is therefore, clear that until and
unless the defendant takes possession of the land after theacquisition, no title possess to it. In such a case, the person in
possession can validly claim possessory title as against theof
title.
It was for the applicant to take over the actual possession at the
time of handing over the possession by the acquiring authority
and in case had their been some resistance to do, it would have
rt
been appropriate for the applicant party to move under Section
16 of Land Acquisition Act to obtain the actual possession onthe ground at that point of time. Since that remedy has not been
availed by the party at that point of time, therefore, this
application is not maintainable under Section 16 of LandAcquisition Act, now and hence dismissed. File be consigned to
the General Record Room after the completion.
Announced in the open court on today 28th May, 2007.”
14. Similar order came to be passed on 18.06.2007 that the
matter was of civil nature and had already been decided by the Trial
Court. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:-
“Case called. Counsel for both the parties present. The
arguments in this case have already been heard. From the
perusal of arguments and record so placed on the file, it reveals
that a case between the parties have already been decided in
the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class Palampur on 3.4.1981 vide
civil suit No. 214/1976 titled as Smt. Chirago Devi versus Union
of India etc. wherein the respondents (petitioners in the present
petition) have been restrained to make any interference in the::: Downloaded on – 06/03/2026 20:33:36 :::CIS
13
2026:HHC:5868-DBland in question. In such circumstances, this Court has nothing
to do in this case in view of the being of civil nature. Hence the.
petition is dismissed and the parties are directed to seek
remedy in the competent court of law. The file be consigned to
the GRR after due formalities.”
15. Another order was passed by the Collector on 16.11.2010,
the relevant portion whereof reads as under:-
of
“I have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the
material on record very carefully and it is obvious that the
instant application has been filed by the applicant on
rt
21.06.2003 after a lapse of more than 36 years.
It is well settled law that the law of limitation cannot be
extended on equitable grounds. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
P. K. Ramachandaran vs. State of Kerala has held that the law
of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be
applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribed and the
court has no power to extend the period of limitation on
equitable grounds (AIR 1998 SC 2276). The proposition of law
is that if a case is barred by limitation it must be dismissed by
the court not withstanding that no such plea was taken by the
either of the parties (AIR 1964 SC 1336).
It is obvious from the perusal of the case file and the discussion
held here in above that it was for the applicant to take
possession at the time of handing over of the possession by the
acquiring authority and the appropriate action u/s 16 and other
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act could have been taken
by the said acquiring authority at that point of time. Moreover
there is colossal delay in filing the application and the
application is badly barred by limitation and the same is
dismissed.”
::: Downloaded on – 06/03/2026 20:33:36 :::CIS
14
2026:HHC:5868-DB
16. Resultantly, the present writ petitions came to be filed,
which as noticed, were dismissed on account of lapsing of proceedings
.
on account of possession not having been taken, which view cannot be
sustained as noticed above in view of the judgment of the Apex Court
in Indore Development Authority’s case (supra).
17. The right as such to claim the possession of the
of
immovable property or any interest would become time barred in view
of Article 65 of the Limitation Act, which is 12 years when the
rt
possession of the defendants become adverse to the plaintiffs.
18. As noticed, in the plaint itself, there was an admission that
the possession of the present respondents was apparently open and
hostile in as much as even construction was being raised in front of the
eyes of the present appellants and, therefore, they were constrained to
file the civil suit for possession. The delay at the hands as such of the
appellants of a period of over 30 years from 1966 to 29.04.1989, thus,
cannot be countenanced.
19. In such circumstances, once the factual matrix is clear, it
would be a travesty of justice as such at this point of time to enforce the
award by way of writ of mandamus on the ground that the appellants as
such had deposited the compensation and, therefore, having become
owners of the land by virtue of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act
and are entitled for possession. The specific plea had been taken by
::: Downloaded on – 06/03/2026 20:33:36 :::CIS
15
2026:HHC:5868-DB
the respondents in the civil suit, had the same been not adjudicated
upon solely on the ground that the suit was not maintainable.
.
20. Having not acted promptly at that point of time and letting
the private respondents to continue the possession for a long period of
over 30 years before even filing the suit, we would grant the benefit as
such of adverse possession to the respondents.
of
21. The earlier view of the Apex Court was that the principle
of adverse possession can be only used as shield to protect the settled
rt
possession. Now the view has veered around to the extent that on the
basis of long possession, person is also entitled to suit for declaration
that they are owners by virtue of adverse possession.
22. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. vs. Manjit Kaur &
Ors. (2019) 8 SCC 729, wherein it has been held as under:-
“62. We hold that a person in possession cannot be ousted by
another person except by due procedure of law and once 12
years’ period of adverse possession is over, even owner’s rightto eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right,
title and interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner as
the case may be against whom he has prescribed. In our
opinion, consequence is that once the right, title or interest is
acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well as a
shield by the defendant within ken of Article 65 of the Act and
any person who has perfected title by way of adverse
possession, can file a suit for restoration of possession in case
of dispossession. In case of dispossession by another person
by taking law in his hand a possessory suit can be maintained::: Downloaded on – 06/03/2026 20:33:36 :::CIS
16
2026:HHC:5868-DBunder Article 64, even before the ripening of title by way of
adverse possession. By perfection of title on extinguishment of.
the owner’s title, a person cannot be remediless. In case he has
been dispossessed by the owner after having lost the right by
adverse possession, he can be evicted by the plaintiff by taking
the plea of adverse possession. Similarly, any other personwho might have dispossessed the plaintiff having perfected title
by way of adverse possession can also be evicted until andof
unless such other person has perfected title against such a
plaintiff by adverse possession. Similarly, under other Articles
also in case of infringement of any of his rights, a plaintiff who
has perfected the title by adverse possession, can sue and
rt
maintain a suit.”
23. Though the Apex Court in B. Leelavathi vs. Honnamma
& Anr. 2005 (2) CCC 663 has held that plea of adverse possession is a
question of fact and has to be specifically pleaded but in this case, as
noticed, it is the case of the appellants themselves by way of admission
on their part of long adverse possession and therefore once the fact as
such is admitted by them, we deem it appropriate to adjudicate on the
issue rather than relegating the parties to another round of litigation to
prove that their title has got perfected on the basis of long possession.
24. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion
that the present appeals are not liable to be allowed by setting aside
the orders of the Collector though the reasoning of the learned Single
Judge for different reasons cannot as such sustain. Resultantly, the
view cannot be sustained and to that extent the appeals are disposed
off but the writ petitions continue to remain dismissed.
::: Downloaded on – 06/03/2026 20:33:36 :::CIS
17
2026:HHC:5868-DB
25. Accordingly, we dismiss the present set of appeals.
.
(G. S. Sandhawalia)
Chief Justice
(Bipin C. Negi)
th
28 February, 2026 Judge
(sanjeev)
of
rt
::: Downloaded on – 06/03/2026 20:33:36 :::CIS