Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 423 (HP)

General Manager, Nhpc v. Tripta

2018-03-21

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J —During the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the present lis, is squarely covered, by the decision rendered by this Court, in RFA No. 334 of 2011 titled as General Manager, Parvati Hydroelectric Project, NHPC & another versus Shri Duni Chand & another, decided on 6.9.2017, verdict stands extracted hereinbelow:- "The beneficiaries i.e. Parvati Hydroelectric Project Stage-III (Bhuntar, District Kullu, respondent No. 3 in the trial Court) is in appeal before this Court. The complaint is that learned Reference Court below has erroneously re-determined the market value of the acquired land irrespective of its nature and category at flat rate i.e. Rs.18, 000/-per biswa. The land of the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the ''petitioner'') situate in Phati Manyasi, Kothi Kanon , Sub Tehsil Sainj, District Kullu has been acquired by the respondents for the construction of Parvati Hydroelectric Project. On completion of all codal formalities, first respondent, Collector Land Acquisition, has made award No. 23 dated 9.8.2005 and determined different rates qua different type of the acquired land. The effected persons like the petitioner herein were accordingly awarded the compensation. The petitioner and such effected persons were not satisfied with the compensation so awarded, hence references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be filed . The reference petition preferred by the petitioner has been decided vide the award under challenge. Learned reference Court has determined the market value of the acquired land at flat rate i.e. Rs.18, 000/- per biswa (Rs.3, 60, 000/- per bigha) and awarded the compensation accordingly. 2. The beneficiaries appellants-respondents have assailed the award on several grounds. However, mainly that the compensation awarded is on higher side. Also that the market value of the acquired land could have not been determined at flat rate and rather keeping in view its nature and quality. 3. It is worth mentioning that against similar award passed by learned Reference Court in the references preferred by other effected persons the market value of the acquired land was determined at flat rate i.e. Rs.18, 000/- per biswa by the Reference Court below. 3. It is worth mentioning that against similar award passed by learned Reference Court in the references preferred by other effected persons the market value of the acquired land was determined at flat rate i.e. Rs.18, 000/- per biswa by the Reference Court below. The beneficiaries preferred appeals against the award so passed in this Court and in a bunch of such appeals, lead case whereof was RFA No. 197 of 2010, titled Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC, Ltd. & another versus Shri Kewalu and another, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held the determination of the market value of the acquired land at flat rate i.e. Rs.18, 000/- per biswa as legal and valid and as a result thereof dismissed all the appeals vide judgment dated 8.9.2016. It is seen that the acquired land in those cases was also situated in Phati Manyasi, Kothi Kanon , Sub Tehsil Sainj, District Kullu. Even those references have also arisen out of award No. 23 made by the Collector Land Acquisition and the land was acquired for the same public purpose as in the case in hand. Therefore, all points raised in this appeal have been considered and decided by a Coordinate Bench in the judgmenton appreciation of the evidence available on record as well as the law applicable. Being so, there is no need to go into all factual details and also to discuss the evidence available on record as the points raised in this appeal are squarely covered by the judgmentin favour of the petitioner. 4. Learned Counsel on both sides are also in agreement with the position so emerges on record in view of the judgmentrendered by this Court in Kewalu''s case and connected matters. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. 5. Pending application(s) , if any, shall also stand disposed of." 2. Consequently, in view of the aforestated submissions'' addressed herebefore also when appeal bearing RFA No. 334 of 2011, appertains to a subject matter holding similarity vis--vis the subject matter hereat, and, with the aforesaid appeal standing dismissed by this Court, thereupon, the present appeals'' preferred herebefore by the appellants herein, are also, dismissed in the terms, of verdict recorded in RFA No. 334 of 2011. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.