Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1388 (HP)

NTPC Ltd. (kol Dam) Barmana v. Gian Chand Dhiman

2017-12-14

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2017
JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Oral) - This judgment shall disposed of all the above appeals, arising out of common award dated 19.11.2011, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, H.P. , in reference petitions filed under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" in short) separately by the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the "petitioners-claimants"), whereby instead of assessment of the market value of the acquired land at different rates as the Land Acquisition Collector, proforma respondent, did vide award No.2, dated 23.07.2002, has re-determined the same at flat rate, i.e. Rs. 5 lac per bigha, irrespective of its nature and quality. 2. The petitioners-claimants are residents of village Kayan, Post Office Dhwal, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi (H.P.). Their land was acquired by proforma respondent for being used by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the "beneficiary") for construction of KOLDAM Hydroelectric Power Project. A notification No.Vidyut-CH(5)- 58/2000, dated 11.12.2000, was issued in this regard under Section 4 and sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act by the Secretary (Power) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. On the completion of all codal formalities and following procedure prescribed under the Act for acquisition of land for a public purpose, the proforma respondent has assessed the market value of the acquired land on the basis of its nature and category as under:- Class of land Area Rate per bigha Barani Abbal 117-1-2 bigha Rs.4,35,447.26 Barani Doyam 77-17-15 bigha Rs.3,74,969.20 Bagicha Barani 14-10-11 bigha Rs.3,74,969.06 Banjar Kable Kasht 16-6-15 bigha Rs.90,695.68 Khadyatar 3-19-10 bigha Rs.78,508.87 Gair Mumkin 22-16-16 bigha Rs.90,718.82 Grand Total 252-12-09 bigha Rs.3,54,243.54 3. The said respondent assessed the compensation accordingly and awarded the same to the petitioners-claimants, together with other statutory benefits vide award No.2, dated 23.07.2002. 4. Aggrieved by the said award, various references, including the references preferred by the petitioners-claimants herein, came to be filed before the proforma respondent under Section 18 of the Act for redetermination of market value of the acquired land and enhancement of compensation. In the references so preferred, learned reference Court below did not agree to the assessment of market value of the acquired land on the basis of its nature and category and rather assessed the same at flat rate, i.e. Rs. 5 lac per bigha. In the references so preferred, learned reference Court below did not agree to the assessment of market value of the acquired land on the basis of its nature and category and rather assessed the same at flat rate, i.e. Rs. 5 lac per bigha. The award was accordingly modified and the enhanced compensation awarded to the claimants accordingly, together with all statutory benefits. 5. The Coordinate Bench of this Court has decided RFA No.325 of 2010, titled NTPC vs. Amar Singh & another, arising out of the same notification and award No.2, dated 23.07.2002, vide judgment dated 13.12.2016. It is seen that in Amar Singh''s case supra, also the acquired land was situated in village Kalyan and acquired for the same public purpose, i.e. construction of KOLDAM Hydroelectric Power Project by National Thermal Power Corporation Limited. In that case, also the reference Court below had assessed market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 5 lac per bigha, irrespective of its nature and category, as in these cases. Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate, has urged that the points in issue in these appeals are covered in favour of the petitioners-claimants by the judgment in Amar Singh''s case supra. Not only this but according to Mr. Kanwar, this judgment has now attained finality. Learned counsel representing the petitioner-beneficiary (appellant herein) and also learned Additional Advocate General, has not controverted the submissions so made nor brought anything contrary to the notice of this Court that the judgment (supra) is not attracted in these appeals. They rather have fairly conceded that the judgment supra has now attained finality and that the points in issue in these appeals are covered thereby. In this view of the matter there is no need to elaborate the facts of the case and also evidence produced by the parties on both sides in the reference Court below and in view of the judgment (supra), these appeals also deserve dismissal. The same are accordingly dismissed and the impugned award affirmed. All the appeals stand accordingly disposed of, so also pending application (s), if any.