Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2160 (HP)

Amar Singh v. State of H. P.

2011-05-17

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2011
JUDGMENT : Deepak Gupta, J (Oral) This petition depicts a shocking state of affair where the officials of the State instead of looking after the interest of the public seem hell bent to thwart the legitimate rights of the citizens of the State. 2. Respondent No.3 National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC) set up two Hydro Electric Projects known as Chamera-I and Chemera-II. As far as this petition is concerned, we are only concerned with Chamera-I project. Land was acquired for the construction of this project and a rehabilitation package was drawn up for payment of compensation to the families dispossessed of their lands. As per this rehabilitation package employment had to be given to 700 people. It is not disputed that 508 people were granted employment in terms of the package. The NHPC claimed that even prior to the package employment had already been given to 192 persons whose land had been acquired. The stand of the NHPC was that since these 192 persons were already working in the Project it was not necessary to provide employment to them again or to any other member of their families. This matter was referred to a High Powered Committee which was constituted in the following terms: “Point No.6: To provide employment to the families due to establishment of Chamera Hydroelectric Project. During discussion on the subject, the members referred the state level meeting held on 07.07.1985 in which it was decided to give employment to 700 persons of the families affected due to establishment of this Project. The project authorities have provided such employment to only 508 persons and their dependents only of the project affected area and employment to remaining 192 has not been provided till date. The NHPC authorities claimed that as agreed, employment to 700 persons/their wards of the project affected area has already been provided by the Corporation. As per the records of the office of NHPC, the above figures are not correct, in fact 192 persons of project affected area were already employed on muster roll basis in the beginning of the project activities i.e. before the agreement and their names were not nominated for employment by NHPC. As per the records of the office of NHPC, the above figures are not correct, in fact 192 persons of project affected area were already employed on muster roll basis in the beginning of the project activities i.e. before the agreement and their names were not nominated for employment by NHPC. As per the information provided by the Land Acquisition Collector, Chamera, out of 192 persons only 47 persons were those whose land was partially acquired by NHPC for the establishment of project and the land of remaining 145 persons were at all not acquired despite the fact that this was the responsibility of NHPC only. After detailed deliberations/ discussions on the subject, it was unanimously decided to appoint a high powered committee under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Industries Minister, Hon’ble Minister of State for Ayurveda, Executive Director (Administration), Chamera Hydroelectric Project, Stage-II, NHPC, Dalhousie and three members from Welfare Committee (Kalyan Sabha) will be members of this Committee. The Committee will decide on the dispute of providing employment to 192 persons or they can be compensated on other way. This eight members committee, in which representatives of oustees families have also been included, will solve the problem on the mutually agreed terms and conditions. Therefore, the discussion ended with this decision.” 3. Thereafter, the Committee met and decided as follows: “In continuation of earlier meeting of High Power Committee held on 6.9.2002, a meeting was held today on 18.11.2002 under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Industries Minister, H.P. to decide the package to be given to remaining 192 oustees of Chamera-I and 120 oustees of Chamera-II. At the outset the Hon’ble Minister welcomed the members of the Committee. The list of identified persons of Chamera-I and Chamera-II signed by the members of the committee was submitted. After a long deliberation it was decided to give alternative package in lieu of employment to the affected families @ Rs.3.00 lacs in cases of Chamera-I and @ Rs.2.5 lacs per affected family in cases of Chamera-II. It was decided that this amount will be given in one instalment to Chamera-II and in two equal instalments to Chamera-I ( within this financial year and second instalment in April to June, 2003). It was also agreed that with the declaration of this package, no claim from any person regarding employment in Chamera-I and Chamera-II shall be entertained under this package. It was also agreed that with the declaration of this package, no claim from any person regarding employment in Chamera-I and Chamera-II shall be entertained under this package. It was also decided that it shall be obligatory on the part of beneficiary families of Chamera-I and Chamera-II getting this alternative package to file an affidavit to withdraw the court cases if any pertaining to land compensation etc. before actual release of payment.” 4. Thus, it is clear that as far as these 192 oustees of Chamera-I are concerned, they were to get Rs.3.00 lacs as compensation in lieu of the employment to be provided to one member of the family subject to the condition that the persons would file an affidavit to withdraw court cases pertaining to the land compensation. Effectively what this meant was that instead of getting employment and claiming enhanced compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, they would get this amount of Rs.3.00 lacs. 5. It would be pertinent to mention that the NHPC deposited this amount in the year June 2003 as stated by Sh. K.D. Shreedhar, learned counsel for the NHPC. 6. The petitioner claims that he had obtained employment of his own right in the year 1981 and got work charged status in the year 1984. The land belonging to the father of the petitioner was acquired in the year 1989 and his father expired in the year 1991. The case of the petitioner is that he is a member of those 192 families of Chamera-I Project duly identified. 7. It is not disputed by the State that the petitioner is one of the 192 persons originally identified. In fact, the case of the State is that even after objections were decided again the petitioner was again identified as being entitled to such benefit. However, according to the State two other petitions were filed and therefore the amount has not been released to the petitioner. 8. There is no manner of doubt that the land of Chamaru Ram, father of the petitioner, was acquired in the year 1989. It is also not disputed that he was one of the families identified for rehabilitation package. In fact, according to the State even on re-verification it was found that the case of the petitioner was covered. One fails to understand why this money has not been paid to him. It is also not disputed that he was one of the families identified for rehabilitation package. In fact, according to the State even on re-verification it was found that the case of the petitioner was covered. One fails to understand why this money has not been paid to him. The State is the custodian of the money which rightfully belongs to the persons affected by the land acquisition. The State has no business whatsoever to retain this money. It was the duty of the State to have released this money immediately after it was received from the NHPC to 192 persons who had been identified. 9. True it is, that some writ petitions were filed in which claims and counter claims were made about the inclusion/non-inclusion of certain names in the list of 192 persons. However, as far as the petitioner is concerned the material on record clearly shows that his father was identified as one of the affected persons to be given the package of Rs.3.00 lacs. 10. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent-State is directed to make the payment of Rs.3.00 lacs to the petitioner being the sole heir of Chamaru Ram. This amount be paid alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. on or before 31st August, 2011 failing which the State shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. it is made clear that the interest shall be borne by the State and not by the NHPC. It is further directed that the State, if it so desires, can recover the interest from the concerned Deputy Commissioner due to whose negligence the payment was delayed. No costs. 11. Normally, the proceedings would have been closed at this stage but this Court cannot be a mute bystander to the harassment and torture of the citizens of the State where the State has kept the money of the persons who have been deprived of their land for the last more than 9 years. Why these poor persons who have been deprived of the legitimate compensation should suffer. Even if there is any dispute, the same has to be decided with utmost speed and the State is not expected to move at a snails pace and sit over these long standing claims of the land owners whose lands were acquired more than two decades back. Even if there is any dispute, the same has to be decided with utmost speed and the State is not expected to move at a snails pace and sit over these long standing claims of the land owners whose lands were acquired more than two decades back. This indeed is a shocking state of affair and therefore this Court is compelled to issue the following directions: i) The Deputy Commissioner, Chamba shall within eight weeks from today file an affidavit in which he shall clearly answer the following queries: a) What is the exact amount deposited by the NHPC in respect of Chamera-I & II projects as per the decision of the High Powered Committee dated 18.11.2002 referred to above and when was this amount deposited ? b) Why the need arose to re-identify the 192 persons when their identification had already been done by the previous Committee? c) What process was followed for reidentifying the persons? d) What was the criteria laid down for identifying these persons? e) Has any amount been released out of the amount deposited by the NHPC and if so how much and to whom? f) What is the amount, if any, left with the State? ii) The NHPC shall also file an affidavit within the aforesaid period giving the details of 192 persons who were employed by it before the rehabilitation package and who were the subject matter of the High Powered Committee. It shall also be stated as to which land belonged to which person. The affidavit shall be filed by a person not below the rank of Executive Director of the concerned Region. List on 20th July, 2011. Dasti copy.