JUDGMENT Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. - Writ Petition filed by respondent No.1, was allowed by learned Single Judge, whereunder, in lieu of purchase of 17-15 Bighas land of the writ petitioner, the appellants were directed to pay him enhanced amount, alongwith upto date interest, in terms of the Award No.658 dated 23.08.2012 and Supplementary Award dated 11.02.2013, passed by Land Acquisition Collector, HPPCL, Shimla. While allowing the writ petition, cost of Rs.1,00,000/- lakh was also imposed upon the appellants payable initially from its own coffers, whereafter, the same was to be recovered from erring official(s) on the basis of inquiry directed to be conducted in the matter. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment dated 30.07.2019, the instant Letter Patent Appeal has been preferred. Appellants were respondents in the writ petition. The parties are referred here-in-after as they were before learned Writ Court. 2. The facts of the case may be noticed:- 2(i). Respondent/Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd., required land for construction of 'Renukaji Dam Project' and for this purpose, inter-alia, land measuring 17-15 Bigha, comprised in Khasra Nos.402/316, 404/316/2, 320, 321, 322, 416/438, 369 and 370, situate at Village Siun, Sub Tehsil Nohra, Tehsil Sangrah, District Sirmour (H.P.), owned and possessed by the petitioner, was also needed. 2(ii). The respondents, without adopting the procedure under the Land Acquisition Act, directly approached the petitioner for purchase of his land. The land in question was agreed to be sold/ purchased at the negotiated rates of the respondents. Land was sold to respondents under sale-deed No.227 executed on 24.09.2009. However, an 'Assurance' was given to the petitioner that in case the negotiated rates are enhanced in future, then the same enhanced rates will also be paid towards acquisition of his land purchased by the respondents. This Assurance, being relevant, is extracted hereinafter:- "ASSURANCE FOR NEGOTIATED RATES FOR LAND ACQUISITION IN REJUKA HEP HPPCL has offered rates for land to be acquired through negotiations vide its order No.HPPCL/MD/Rev.-1/08-1696 dated 06.12.08. HPPCL agrees that in case the negotiated rates for land being acquired for dam and reservoir area (sub mergence area) are enhanced the same rates will be paid to Shri Sat Dev Singh s/o Sh. Shiv Dev Singh R/o Naya Bazar Nahan District Sirmour H.P. for his land measuring 17- 15 Bigha comprised in Kh. HPPCL agrees that in case the negotiated rates for land being acquired for dam and reservoir area (sub mergence area) are enhanced the same rates will be paid to Shri Sat Dev Singh s/o Sh. Shiv Dev Singh R/o Naya Bazar Nahan District Sirmour H.P. for his land measuring 17- 15 Bigha comprised in Kh. No.402/316, 404/316/2, 320, 321, 322, 416/438, 369-370 Total Kita 8, measuring 17-15 Bigha vide Sale Deed No.227 Dt.24/9/09 situated in Village Siun Sub Teh. Nohra Distt. Sirmour HP. This undertaking is being given to ensure that those persons who come forward for sale of land voluntarily are not disadvantaged. Sd/- Naib Tehsildar RC.C.H.P.P.C.L. Dadahu Sd/ For and on behalf of HPPCL General Manager Renukaji Dam Project HPPCL Dadahu ......." 2(iii). Respondents also acquired lands of various other land owners of same area through land acquisition process. The Land Acquisition Collector, HPPCL, Shimla, passed an Award on 23.08.2012, determining rates for acquisition of land in the area. The solatium and additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, alongwith interest @ 12% per annum, was also awarded. The Land Acquisition Collector was aware of the fact that various land owners in the area had already sold their land(s) to the respondents through respective sale-deed(s) at negotiated rates offered by the respondents under an 'Assurance' of getting the enhanced amount in future. Accordingly, in the Supplementary Award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 11.02.2013, it was specifically observed that the respondents had undertaken to the enhanced amount of compensation to such land owners who had sold their land(s) by way of private negotiation. It will be apposite to reproduce the relevant extract from this supplementary award:- "Some of the land owners have transferred their share in the land comprised in Kh. Nos.325, 326, 409/327, 336, 357, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 1/4, 104/1, 402/316, 452/404/316, 320, 321, 322, 416/368, 369, 370, 372, 374 in favour of HPPCL through private negotiation and there are also fruit and non-fruit bearing trees standing over such land. Since the HPPCL has given undertaking at the time of sale transactions that they will give enhanced amount of compensation if given to the other interest holders, value of trees which has not been paid and assessment of which has now been done, is payable to the interest holders who have sold the land by way of private negotiation as well. Hence the compensation on account of trees falling to the share of such interest holders too has been included in this award. This amount will be paid as per the share recorded in the revenue record before the sale of the land in favour of HPPCL." 2(iv). It is not in dispute that land in question is included in the Supplementary Award, extracted above. However, respondent/Corporation, treated the observations of the Land Acquisition Collector as applicable only in respect of paying compensation in lieu of trees standing over the land(s) of those land owners whose lands were purchased under 'Assurance'. Accordingly, though compensation was paid to the petitioner for the trees existing over the land in question in terms of Supplementary Award, however, no additional payment was made to him for the land sold by him at the rates determined under the Awards. 2(v). Petitioner sent a Legal Notice dated 27.10.2014 to the respondents, seeking payment for his land at the rates determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. Respondents, however, did not even bother to reply to this Legal Notice, constraining the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition was allowed by learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 30.07.2019, which is impugned in present appeal. 3. 3(i). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 3(ii). According to learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the 'Assurance' was given by respondents to pay him rates enhanced in future for his land purchased by respondents vide sale-deed No.227, dated 24.09.2009, to ensure that the petitioner, who had voluntarily come forward for sale of his land, is not put to disadvantageous position. His contention is that:- the 'Assurance' executed by the respondent-Corporation, necessarily related to the rates to be determined by the Land Acquisition Collector for acquisition of land in the same area for the same Project; it is for this reason that "Assurance' records the undertaking of the respondent-Corporation that those persons, who voluntarily come forward for sale of their land, are not put to disadvantage; there is no averment in the 'Assurance' that enhanced rates relate to the enhancement to be made by the Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation. 3(iii). 3(iii). Per contra, learned counsel for the appellants/ original respondents, submits that the enhancement mentioned in the 'Assurance', does not relate to the rate determined by the Land Acquisition Collector; the enhancement mentioned in the 'Assurance' necessarily relates only to the increase in negotiated rates to be determined in future by the Board of Directors of the respondents. He further submits that the Board of Directors of respondents-Corporation, in fact, had of their own enhanced the negotiated rate on 30.09.2009. This enhanced negotiated rate was made applicable in the case of petitioner's land also and accordingly Rs.2,58,750/- was ordered to be paid to him on 17.11.2009; petitioner is not entitled to be paid for the land at the rate determined by the Land Acquisition Collector as the petitioner had opted for negotiated rates and had voluntarily sold his land to the respondents under this mode. 4. 4(i). A careful perusal of the 'Assurance' for negotiated rates for land acquisition for RenukaJi Dam Project', reveals that the HPPCL/respondents had offered certain rates for the land allegedly through negotiations vide order dated 06.12.2008 with rider that in case the rates are enhanced in future, then the same rates will be paid to the land owners agreeing to sale their land(s) through negotiations. The object of paying enhanced rates even to those land owners who had sold their land(s) voluntarily, was to ensure that such land owners are not put to disadvantage in future, vis-a-vis, those who did not sell their land(s) and in whose case rates were determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. There is no averment in this 'Assurance' that the enhancement in the rates mentioned in the 'Assurance' is relatable only to the future enhancement by the Board of Directors of respondents. 4(ii). In fact, in the supplementary award passed on 11.02.2013, the Land Acquisition Collector had also noticed this 'Assurance' of the respondents to pay enhanced amount to the land owners like the petitioner in lieu of land(s) already sold by him. 4(ii). In fact, in the supplementary award passed on 11.02.2013, the Land Acquisition Collector had also noticed this 'Assurance' of the respondents to pay enhanced amount to the land owners like the petitioner in lieu of land(s) already sold by him. It is not in dispute that the land sold by the petitioner under Khasra Nos.325, 326, 409/327, 336, 357, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 1/4, 104/1, 402/316, 452/404/316, 320, 321, 322, 416/368, 369, 370, 372, 374, falls under Supplementary Award dated 11.02.2013, whereunder, respondents were directed to pay enhanced amount to land owners, like the petitioner, if same amount had been given to other interest holders in the area. The respondent-Corporation has admittedly paid the value of trees existing over the land in question to the petitioner in accordance with the Awards passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, but, has not paid the enhanced amount for the land sold by the petitioner at the rate as per the Award dated 23.08.2012 and Supplementary Award dated 11.02.2013, passed by the Land Acquisition Collector. 4(iii). The interpretation given by the respondents to the 'Assurance' as well as to the supplementary award is misplaced. Reading the 'Assurance' as limited to enhancement determined in future by its Board of Directors, is self serving interpretation put-forth by the respondents. It is not in dispute that the lands purchased by the respondent-Corporation from the petitioner as well as the land acquired by respondent-Corporation under the Land Acquisition Act, is located in same area and required for one and same Project, i.e. 'Renukaji Dam Project'. The purchase of land of the petitioner was not under mutual negotiation simplicitor process. In order to enable the respondent-Corporation to start the Project work, it had purchased the land from the petitioner under negotiated rates. However, such sale was on the edifice of an 'Assurance' given by the respondents that any enhancement in respect of rate of land in future will be payable to the petitioner to safeguard his interest. The enhancement in the negotiated rates by the Board of Directors of respondent-Corporation and payment of this enhanced rate to the petitioner, does not satisfy the stipulation of 'Assurance' and does not safeguard the interest of petitioner. The payment of enhanced amount under the Board of Directors' decision will not create estoppal against the petitioner in claiming enhanced rates in terms of Collector's awards. The payment of enhanced amount under the Board of Directors' decision will not create estoppal against the petitioner in claiming enhanced rates in terms of Collector's awards. The petitioner has received a sum of Rs.16,27,500/- from the respondent-Corporation in lieu of the sale of land in question, whereas, under awards passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, this amount would workout approximately at Rs.51,19,432/-. Other statutory benefits are also payable to the petitioner in consonance with the Awards. 4(iv). We are in agreement with the observations returned by leaned Single Judge that a State defined within the ambit of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, has to meet honest claims and should not score technical points and overreach weaker parties to avoid its liability for securing unfair advantage. When rates of similar land(s) in similar area for same Project had been determined under the Awards passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, then same rates are due and payable to the writ petitioner also and he cannot be discriminated, vis-a-vis, others for claiming enhanced rates. This has also been noticed by the Land Acquisition Collector in his Supplementary Award dated 11.02.2013. 4(iv)((a). In titled Dilbagh Rai Jerry versus Union of India, (1974) AIR SC 130 Hon'ble Supreme Court after taking into consideration the fact that the State's interest is to meet honest claims to a weaker party, had observed as under:- "25....................................... The State under our Constitution, undertakes economic activities in a vast and widening public sector and inevitably get involved in disputes with private individuals. But it must be remembered that the State is no ordinary party trying to win a case against one of its own citizens by hook or by crook ; for, the State's interest is to meet honest claims, vindicate a substantial defence and never to score a technical point or overreach a weaker party to avoid a just liability or secure an unfair advantage, simply because legal devices provide such an opportunity. The State is a virtuous litigant and looks with unconcern on immoral forensic successes so that if on the merits the case is weak, government shows a willingness to settle the dispute regardless of prestige and other lesser motivations which move private parties to right in court. The State is a virtuous litigant and looks with unconcern on immoral forensic successes so that if on the merits the case is weak, government shows a willingness to settle the dispute regardless of prestige and other lesser motivations which move private parties to right in court. The lay-out on litigation costs and executive time by the State and the agencies is so staggering these days because of the large amount of litigation in which it is involved that a positive and wholesome policy of cutting back on the volume of law suits by the twin methods of not being tempted into forensic show-downs where a reasonable adjustment is feasible and ever offering to extinguish a pending proceeding on just terms, giving the legal mentors of government some initiative and authority in this behalf. I am not indulging in any judicial homily but only echoing the dynamic national policy on State litigation evolved at a Conference of Law Minister of India way back in 1957. This second appeal strikes me as an instance of disregard of that policy." 4(iv)((b). In titled Bhusawal Municipal Council versus Nivrutti Ramchandra Phalak and others, (2015) 14 SCC 327 to avoid the various litigations with regard to acquisition of land(s) of the farmers/villagers instituted under the circumstances created by the State(s), while considering the grievances of weaker farmers taking into account their fundamental rights effected by land acquisition, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- "17. The fundamental right of a farmer to cultivate his land is a part of right to livelihood "Agricultural land is the foundation for a sense of security and freedom from fear. Assured possession is a lasting source for peace and prosperity." India being predominantly an agricultural society, there is a "strong linkage between the land and the person's status in the social system." "10......A blinkered vision of development, complete apathy towards those who are highly adversely affected by the development process and a cynical unconcern for the enforcement or the laws lead to a situation where the rights and benefits promised and guaranteed under the Constitution hardly ever reach the most marginalised citizens. For people whose lives and livelihoods are intrinsically connected to the land. the economic and cultural shift to a market economy can be traumatic." (Vide: Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. & Anr. For people whose lives and livelihoods are intrinsically connected to the land. the economic and cultural shift to a market economy can be traumatic." (Vide: Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. & Anr. v. Mathias Oram & Ors., (2010) 11 SCC 269 ; and Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., (2011) AIR SC 1989 ) 18. A farmer's life is a tale of continuous experimentation and struggle for existence. Mere words or a visual can never convey what it means to live a life as an Indian farmer. Unless one experiences their struggle, that headache he will never know how it feels. The risks faced by the farming community are many; they relate to natural calamities such as drought and floods; high fluctuation in the prices of input as well as output, over which he has no control whatsoever; a credit system which never extends a helping hand to the neediest; domination by middlemen who enjoy the fruits of a farmer's hard work; spurious inputs, and the recent phenomenon of labour shortages, which can be conveniently added to his tale of woes. Of late, there have been many cases of desperate farmers ending their lives in different parts of the country. The Principles of Economics provides for the producer of a commodity to determine his prices but an Indian farmer perhaps is the only exception to this principle of economics, for even getting a decent price for their produce is difficult for them." The claim of the petitioner, in the case in hand, is securely covered by the aforesaid law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court. 5. In view of the above discussion, we see no merit in the instant Letter Patent Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we quash the direction issued in the impugned judgment in respect of imposition of cost of Rs.1,00,000/- upon the appellants as well as the direction in respect of holding inquiry against the erring officials for recovery of cost from them. Pending miscellaneous application)s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.