Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 43 (HP)

NTPC Limited, Kol Dam v. Chet Ram

2017-01-11

SANJAY KAROL

body2017
JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral)—At the threshold, it is pointed out that the claimant has filed separate RFA No.164 of 2015, titled as Chet Ram v. Collector Land Acquisition , assailing the very same impugned award passed by the Reference Court. It is urged that the present appeal be heard and decided on the basis of material on record and the decision in the present appeal shall have an automatic bearing on the outcome of the said appeal filed by the claimant, more so for the reason that enhancement therein is sought on the basis of material already placed on record by the parties and no fresh material stands placed on record by the claimants. 2. It is an admitted case of the parties that present appeal arises out of Collector''s Award No.79 of 2008, dated 16.02.2008, which was subject matter of consideration in RFA No.425 of 2012, titled as NTPC Ltd. Koldam v. Kuldeep & others , which already stands decided by this Court on 15.12.2016. In view of the dismissal of the appeals filed by the beneficiary, present appeal also merits rejection. 3. However, it is contended by the claimants that on the basis of very material so placed on record by the parties, as considered by the Reference Court, an appeal for enhancement stands filed by the claimants, which is pending adjudication before this Court. A request was made that the said material be considered/re-appreciated and the issue of further enhancement be considered and decided in the present appeal itself. 4. Hence, as desired, this Court proceeds to examine the material placed on record by the parties. 5. Insofar as the question of re-determination of the market value of the acquired land by the Reference Court is concerned, issue remains settled. The only issue which further arises for consideration is as to whether claimants are entitled to any enhanced amount of compensation or not. Enhancement sought is only with regard to the land. There is no new material before this Court for consideration. Also it is not pointed that material placed on record by the parties, more so, by the claimant, was never considered or correctly appreciated by the Reference Court. 6. The Collector Land Acquisition vide Award No. 79 of 2008, determined the market value of the acquired land classification wise ranging from Rs. 83,613/- to Rs. 6,41,032/- per bigha. Also it is not pointed that material placed on record by the parties, more so, by the claimant, was never considered or correctly appreciated by the Reference Court. 6. The Collector Land Acquisition vide Award No. 79 of 2008, determined the market value of the acquired land classification wise ranging from Rs. 83,613/- to Rs. 6,41,032/- per bigha. The acquisition proceedings commenced with the publication of notification in the official gazette on 19.12.2000, so issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The acquisition proceedings concluded with the passing of Collector''s award dated 16.02.2008, under Section 11 of the Act and the State taking over possession of the land. 7. In support of their claim, claimants examined nineteen witnesses, namely, Biptu Ram (PW.1), Charan Dass (PW.2), Sheela Devi (PW.3), Meena Devi (PW.4), Sheela Devi (PW.5), Khub Dass (PW.6), Umesh Kumar (PW.7), Kushal Chand (PW.8), Prem Lal (PW.9), Keshav Ram (PW.10), Bhagat Ram (PW.11), Nardu Ram (PW.12), Meena Devi (PW.13), Rajinder Pal (PW.14), Kamal Kumar (PW.15), Meena Devi (PW.16), Mahinder Gupta (PW.17), Chet Ram (PW.18) & Hem Dass (PW.19) and placed on record sale deeds (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4), apart from valuation reports (Ex.P-5 to Ex.P-7). The exemplar sale deeds pertain to small chunk of land. Also there is no credible evidence with regard to genuineness of such sale transactions. It has come on record that the public was generally aware of the fact of establishment of Kol Dam Project and the possibility of the acquisition of the land in village Tatapani, where the land is situate. Noticeably the Reference Court has uniformly awarded compensation regardless of its classification and category. The fact that the large chunk of land owned by the claimants was of inferior quality also cannot be ignored. Compensation with respect to such land stands enhanced from Rs. 83,613/- to Rs. 6,34,248/-. The increase being substantial in nature obstructs the increase sought by the claimants on the basis of such exemplar sale deeds. Hence, claim of the claimants for further enhancement being untenable in law is rejected. 8. No other point urged or proved. 9. Hence in the given facts and circumstances, no interference is warranted. It cannot be said that the findings returned by the Reference Court are perverse, illegal or erroneous. As such, present appeal stands dismissed, so also pending application(s), if any. 10. 8. No other point urged or proved. 9. Hence in the given facts and circumstances, no interference is warranted. It cannot be said that the findings returned by the Reference Court are perverse, illegal or erroneous. As such, present appeal stands dismissed, so also pending application(s), if any. 10. Quite evidently, in terms of award No.79 of 2008, so passed by the Collector, several land reference petitions came to be clubbed and disposed of by the common impugned award dated 13.09.2013, passed by Additional District Judge (I) Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., Camp at Karsog, in Reference Petition No.24 of 2009, titled as Chet Ram v. Land Acquisition Collector, Kol Dam, Bilaspur and another. Common evidence was led by the parties in land Reference Petition No.31 of 2009, titled as Keshav Ram v. Land Acquisition Collector, Kol Dam, Bilaspur and another . Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that decision rendered in the present appeal would have an automatic bearing on the other connected appeals, arising out of the very same impugned award, pending before this Court. Registrar (Judicial) to take appropriate instructions from Hon''ble the Chief Justice for listing of such connected appeals, before the appropriate Court particulars whereof shall also be supplied by learned counsel for the parties.