Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1276 (HP)

Partap Chand v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-07-11

SANDEEP SHARMA, SANJAY KAROL

body2018
JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, A.C.J. - For the purpose of construction of "Holi Hydel Project", acquisition proceedings under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), were commenced with the publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the H.P. Rajpatra on 30.8.2003. The Collector Land Acquisition determined the market value of the acquired land by passing his award dated 14.7.2005. 2. Dissatisfied with the same, some of the land owners sought reference under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, which came to be answered by the learned District Judge, Chamba, Division Chamba, H.P. with the passing of award dated 29.12.2007 in L.A.C. Petition No.3/2007/2006, titled as Smt. Taro Devi vs. the Collector Land Acquisition, HPSEB, Mandi, H.P., alongwith connected matters. The District Judge enhanced the amount of compensation by redetermining the market value of the acquired land. 3. It is not in dispute that the present claimant Smt. Tara Devi had not sought any such reference. However, by virtue of Section 28-A of the Act, sought re-determination of the market value of her land, so acquired by the very same notification, which application stood adjudicated with the passing of impugned order dated 22.11.2012, by Land Acquisition Collector, HPSEB Ltd., Unit-II, Mandi, in Case No.23/2011, titled as Shri Sunil Kumar and others vs. Land Acquisition Collector. The operative portion of the award reads as under:- "The applicants are also awarded on the basis of the judgment of the Ld. District & Session Judge cited above, 30% solatium on the enhanced market value under Section-23 (2), 12% additional amount under Section -23 (1A) w.e.f. the date of publication of notification till the date of award by the Collector and interest 9% for the first year, 15% upto 31-7-2009. Total compensation thus allowed after re-determin ation comes as under:- i) enhanced amount : Rs. 1,19,326/- ii) 30% solatium : Rs. 35,798/- iii) 12% Additional amount w.e.f. 7-8-03 to 14-7-05 : Rs. 27,383/- iv) 9% interest w.e.f. 15-7-05 to 14-7-06 : Rs. 10,739/- v) 15% interest w.e.f. 15-7-06 to 31-7-09 : Rs. 54,579/- Total : Rs. 2,47,825/- Compensation payable Rs. 2,47,825/- only (Rupees two lac forty seven thousand eight hundred and twenty five) only. Mode of Payment:- The entire amount of compensation payable to each persons interest is mentioned in the statement under Para-55 standing order No.28 attached with the decision." 4. 10,739/- v) 15% interest w.e.f. 15-7-06 to 31-7-09 : Rs. 54,579/- Total : Rs. 2,47,825/- Compensation payable Rs. 2,47,825/- only (Rupees two lac forty seven thousand eight hundred and twenty five) only. Mode of Payment:- The entire amount of compensation payable to each persons interest is mentioned in the statement under Para-55 standing order No.28 attached with the decision." 4. The claimants lay challenge to the order on three counts: (a) The Collector Land Acquisition failed to award interest on the amount of solatium i.e. Rs. 35,798/- @ 9% w.e.f. 15.07.2005 to 14.07.2006; (b) Interest @15% so awarded vide column No.(v) ought to have been awarded till the date of passing of the award, re-determining the amount of compensation i.e. 22.11.2012 instead of 31.7.2009; and (c) Since the beneficiary failed to deposit the amount in the Court/ in terms of the provisions of the Act, the claimant is entitled to interest on the awarded amount, so determined in terms of the impugned order. 5. It is not in dispute that the State/HPSEB has not laid any challenge to the impugned order dated 22.11.2012. 6. Insofar as, first issue i.e. payment of interest on solatium is concerned, Mr. Jyotirmay Bhatt, learned Counsel, invites attention of this Court to the decision rendered by a Constitution Bench (Five Judges) of the Apex Court, in Sunder vs. Union of India (UOI), 2001 (7) SCC 211 . 7. The issue is no longer res integra and in view of the settled position of law, the amount payable as solatium is also component of the compensation, hence the land owner would be entitled to interest on the amount of Rs. 35,798, so determined as solatium. 8. Insofar as second issue is concerned, order is conspicuously silent as to why interest @ 15%, was restricted only upto 31.07.2009, whereas, order redetermining the compensation, was passed on 22.11.2012. 9. Thus, in our considered view, the claimant would be entitled to interest @ 15% also for the period from 01.08.2009 upto 22.11.2012. 10. Insofar as, third issue is concerned, it is not in dispute that even though the order was passed on 22.11.2012, but the amount of compensation was deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector only on 16.08.2014. 11. We see no reason emanating from the record as to why there was delay in doing so. Definitely it cannot be attributed to the claimants. 11. We see no reason emanating from the record as to why there was delay in doing so. Definitely it cannot be attributed to the claimants. As such, in our considered view, claimant would also be entitled to interest thereupon, @ 15% from the date of passing of order of re-determination till the date of deposit. 12. In view of the above, present petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent and the impugned order dated 22.11.2012, passed in Case No.23/2011, titled as Shri Sunil Kumar and others vs. Land Acquisition Collector, is modified accordingly. 13. At this stage, learned counsel for the parties are of the considered view, and jointly pray, that let the matter be remanded back to the Collec tor Land Acquisition (respondent No.4 herein) for ascertaining the actual amount, which is required to be paid to each one of the writ petitioners, after accounting for the factual matrix with respect to each one of the petitioners/claimants. Ordered accordingly. 14. As such, present petition is disposed of in the following terms:- (a) The impugned order dated 22.11.2012, passed in Case No.23/2011, titled as Shri Sunil Kumar and others vs. Land Acquisition Collector, stands modified, in view of the observations made supra; (b) Parties shall appear before the Collector Land Acquisition on 14.08.2018, who shall ascertain the exact amount payable to each one of the claimants, in the light of our observations made hereinabove; and (c) Such amount shall be released to the claimants, in accordance with law, expeditiously, upon each one of them moving appropriate applications. 15. Record, if any, be immediately remitted back to the Court below. Pending applications(s), if any, also stand disposed of.