Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1874 (HP)

Lac, Hppcl v. Kamal Dev

2019-12-09

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - Rfa Nos. 140 of 2016, 142 of 2016, 148 of 2016, 149 of 2016, 151 of 2016, 152 of 2016,153 of 2016, 154 of 2016, 155 of 2016, 156 of 2016, 157 of 2016, 158 of 2016, 159 of 2016, 160 of 2016, 161 of 2016, 162 of 2016, 163 of 2016, 164 of 2016 and 51 of 2017, 209 of 2017, 133 of 2018 a/w C.O No.33 of 2019 and 173 of 2018 are delinked. 2. These appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment, since the question involved therein is the same. 3. In these appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the beneficiary(ies) as also the claimants have assailed the awards passed by the learned Reference Court(s). 4. Certain facts are not in dispute. For public purpose, namely, construction of Renukaji Dam and its submergence area in villages, namely, Siun, Deed Bagar and Lana Machher, District Sirmaur, H.P., the State initiated acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Act. Notification(s) under Section 4 of the Act vis-a-vis for the aforesaid villages were published in the official gazette on 24.01.2009, 18.11.2008/1.8.2009 and 4.10.2008, respectively. The Collector Land Acquisition passed his Awards No.658 dated 23.08.2012, 653 dated 6.8.2012/654 dated 6.8.2012 and 645 dated 6.8.2012 vis-a-vis aforesaid villages. Though the claimants demanded market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 20 lacs per bigha approximately, however, the Collector Land Acquisition, determined the same classification-wise. 5. Aggrieved thereof, Reference Petitions came to be filed by different claimants, which were adjudicated, in terms of the impugned awards. Rejecting the evidence led by the parties, i.e. exemplar sale deeds etc., relying upon the discussion made by the Collector in his award, the Reference Court enhanced the market value of the land falling in the category of Nakabil/Ghasni/Gair Mumkin from Rs. 60,500/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- per bigha. 6. The issue, which this Court is called upon to determine is as to whether such re-determination of the market value is in consonance with the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by LRs vs. State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789 , or not? 7. 60,500/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- per bigha. 6. The issue, which this Court is called upon to determine is as to whether such re-determination of the market value is in consonance with the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by LRs vs. State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789 , or not? 7. The law for award of compensation at uniform rates, when the purpose of acquisition is common and no developmental activity is required to be carried out is no longer res integra and stands settled by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Viluben Jhalejar (supra); Himmat Singh and others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another, (2013) 16 SCC 392 (para 34); Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Dead ) By Legal Representatives and others Versus State of Karnataka and another, (2015) 10 SCC 469 (paras 80 and 81); as also this Court in RFA No. 953 of 2012, titled as Land Acquisition Collector and another Versus Jatinder Singh, decided on 01.06.2016 and other connected matters. 8. It is a settled principle of law that if the land is fully utilized for public purpose, which in the instant case is construction of Renukaji Dam and its submergence area and that no further developmental activities were required to be carried out, the claimants would be entitled to the compensation on uniform basis, irrespective of its classification and category. This is also the position reiterated in Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (supra). 9. The record reveals that rate for the best classification of land in the villages in question was Rs.7 lacs. Under these circumstances, the impugned awards, passed by the learned District Judge/Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., in the appeals/Cross Objections filed by the claimants are allowed with the direction that the market value of the acquired land is re - determined and the claimants are held entitled to compensation @ Rs. 7,00,000/- per bigha, irrespective of its classification and category. Insofar as appeals filed by the beneficiary(ies) are concerned, the same are dismissed. The modification is only to this extent and the remaining portion of the award shall continue to operate as such. It is made clear that the proforma respondents/claimants shall also be entitled to the benefit of enhanced compensation amount under this judgment. 10. All the appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also pending application(s), if any. 11. The modification is only to this extent and the remaining portion of the award shall continue to operate as such. It is made clear that the proforma respondents/claimants shall also be entitled to the benefit of enhanced compensation amount under this judgment. 10. All the appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also pending application(s), if any. 11. The General Manager, Renukaji, HPPCL, Dadahu, District Sirmaur is directed to deposit the entire awarded amount, if already not deposited, within a period of eight weeks from today. 12. I am informed by the learned counsel for the parties that there are other matters, which arise out of the acquisition proceedings for the same Project, details whereof shall be supplied by the learned counsel for the respective parties within a week from today. List such matters alongwith delinked matters, as detailed in para No.1 above, on 17th December, 2019.