ORDER : 1. These writ petitions have been filed by Nand Lal, Chaman Lal and Kamla Devi, petitioners in CWP No. 1176 of 2018 and Babita Devi, petitioner in CWP No. 1969 of 2018, praying that the respondents may be directed to grant compensation of the structure/ houses of the petitioners as per the valuation report prepared by the Civil Engineer, Sunni, vide Annexure P-6 and alternatively prayed for a direction to the respondents to pass an award as per the Land Acquisition Act, with a further prayer that the respondents be directed to implement the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme (Annexure P-5), hereinafter referred to as the Scheme. It is further prayed that respondents be also directed to release the monitory benefits to the petitioners to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- in the form of houseless grant and Rs. 50,000/- as landless grant and to provide independent house/plot with built up 50’ x 40’ provided in Para 2.1.1 of the Scheme vide Annexure P-5. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that respondent-NTPC had acquired the land adjoining the house of the petitioner in the year 2000 for construction of reservoir named as Kol Dam, which was completed about four years back in the year 2014. After the reservoir was filled to its capacity of 46 meters from the sea level, its water started seeping deep into the soil strata and the petitioners were facing imminent danger to their residential houses as well as to the lives of their family members. Even though the respondents have assessed/evaluated the structure of the house as per law/market value but they have not granted any benefit to the petitioners under the Scheme. The residential houses of the petitioners (in CWP No. 1176 of 2018) are situated in Khasra No. 1411/100 at village Thali, Post Office Sunni, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi and (in CWP No. 1969 of 2018) in Khasra No. 1210/553 at Ward No. 6, Near Mela Ground Sunni, Tehsil Sunni, District Shimla. Both these places are situated adjacent to river Satluj, therefore, its soil strata is a mix of sand and clay. The Koldam is a big water body, which is more than 30 Kilometers approximately in length along the bank of river Satluj. Both these places are situated adjacent to river Satluj, therefore, its soil strata is a mix of sand and clay. The Koldam is a big water body, which is more than 30 Kilometers approximately in length along the bank of river Satluj. It has got immense water pressure, which has caused seepage deep into the adjoining land, thereby putting imminent danger to the residential house, human live and to livestock. The petitioners felt its adverse impact in the year 2015 when ground floor of their houses started showing small cracks which kept on widening with each passing year. The land, upon which the houses are constructed, also started showing signs of sinking and sliding. 3. Learned counsel submitted that under the directions of this Court, a Geological Survey Committee was constituted to assess the possible threats to existing properties/houses of project affected areas of Koldam in respect of Sub-Division Karsog and prepared the estimate amounting to Rs. 5,64,081/- of valuation of the house of the petitioners (in CWP No. 1176 of 2018) and Rs. 9,61,576/- of the structure of the house of the petitioner (in CWP No. 1969 of 2018), but the compensation amount as per Land Acquisition Act was not paid to the petitioners in that they were not paid 30% solatium, 12% additional amount on compensation and no benefits under Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme were granted to the petitioners. The petitioners were also not allotted the plots or land for construction of house. It is contended that Government of Himachal Pradesh issued a notification dated 08.12.2003 through FC-cum-Secretary (Revenue) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, regarding allotment of plots to all the houseless families due to the constructions of the Kol Dam Hydro Power Project. Thereafter, Revenue Department issued another notification dated 20.05.2004 regarding amendment of the rules for the allotment of plots at resettlement colony of Kol Dam 2003 in the Department of Revenue (Project Cell) notified vide notification dated 08.12.2003. 4. It is contended that the petitioners got the value of the existing buildings, stone house and temple assessed through Creative Planner and Associates, N.P. Sunni, who assessed the damage to the tune of Rs. 28,94,587/- (in CWP No. 1176 of 2018) and Rs. 12,38,363/- (in CWP No. 1969 of 2018) as per market value. Therefore, the compensation paid to the petitioners is wholly inadequate and there is a huge difference of Rs. 28,94,587/- (in CWP No. 1176 of 2018) and Rs. 12,38,363/- (in CWP No. 1969 of 2018) as per market value. Therefore, the compensation paid to the petitioners is wholly inadequate and there is a huge difference of Rs. 23,30,506/- (in CWP No. 1176 of 2018) and Rs. 2,76,777/- (in CWP No. 1969 of 2018). Referring to the Scheme for the Oustees of Kol Dam Hydro Electric Project, dated 26.02.2000, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that vide Para 2.1.1, Clause (b), respondent-NTPC was under obligation to construct resettlement colony and provide necessary infrastructure and amenities. Since the petitioners are covered under sub-para 2.1 they are entitled to landless grant to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and also for houseless grant of Rs. 60,000/-. 5. Learned counsel for respondent-NTPC and the learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State have opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. The respondent-NTPC has filed separate reply, contending that Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme has been prepared only for those, who become landless and houseless, due to acquisition of land by Kol Dam Hydro Electric Project. The respondents have acquired the land upto the level of 646 meters from the mean sea level (MSL) whereas the full reservoir level is only upto 642 meters from the mean sea level. The respondents have created a safety buffer zone of 4 meters above the reservoir level, i.e. 642 meters from the sea level. Houses of the petitioners are situated beyond the level of 646 meters. After impounding of the reservoir to its capacity, the petitioners stated that the ground floor of their house started showing small cracks. Therefore, damage to their houses was got assessed through Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Karsog, by respondent No. 4, to the tune of Rs. 5,64,081/- (in CWP No. 1176 of 2018) and Rs. 9,61,586/- (in CWP No. 1969 of 2018) and accordingly paid to the petitioners. It is contended that neither the houses of the petitioners nor their land were acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector. There was, therefore, no question of payment of any solatium or additional compensation for these purposes. 5,64,081/- (in CWP No. 1176 of 2018) and Rs. 9,61,586/- (in CWP No. 1969 of 2018) and accordingly paid to the petitioners. It is contended that neither the houses of the petitioners nor their land were acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector. There was, therefore, no question of payment of any solatium or additional compensation for these purposes. The petitioners could not have been considered as Oustees, under Clause 1.2 (a) of the Scheme for Rehabilitation and Resettlement of the Oustees of Kol Dam Hydro Electric Project, which provides that “Oustee” means a Land Owner who has been deprived of his house or land or both on account of acquisition proceedings/private negotiations in connection with the constructions of Kol Dam Project. It is also contended that benefit of the said Scheme has been extended to those 42 houseless families of the surrounding area/village Randol, Thali, Tattapani and Sunni, who actually became houseless due to acquisition of land for the constructions of Kol Dam. The petitioners are, therefore, not entitled to any benefit as they have not become houseless. Even now, the petitioners continue to reside in their houses. Insofar as the damage to their houses is concerned, they have already been paid adequate compensation. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. 8. A perusal of Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme indicates that it was prepared to protect the interest of the Oustees and to make adequate arrangements for their rehabilitation and resettlement. The case of the petitioners is however very peculiar. Neither their land nor their houses have been acquired. What they allege that since their village is situated adjacent to the bank of river Satluj, the soil strata of the land there is a mix of sand and clay. The Kol Dam is a big water body, which is having length of more than 30 kilometers, causes seepage deep into the adjoining land and thereby putting imminent danger to the residential houses, human life and livestock. It is asserted and not denied that certain cracks were witnessed in the houses of the petitioners. The Geological Survey Committee has assessed the damage to the houses of the petitioners and they were paid adequate compensation by the respondent-NTPC. 9. It is asserted and not denied that certain cracks were witnessed in the houses of the petitioners. The Geological Survey Committee has assessed the damage to the houses of the petitioners and they were paid adequate compensation by the respondent-NTPC. 9. The question however is whether it would be justified for this Court to entertain the dispute of present nature in the scope of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. What is required to be decided in the present matter is that if the land and houses of the petitioners have not actually been acquired, can be any justification for this Court to direct the respondents to pass award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which is now replaced by Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In our view, it is not as this Act would not apply to the present fact situation. Once the aforementioned Act is not attracted, the rehabilitation and resettlement of the petitioners under aforementioned Act is not applicable to them. Besides, the petitioners have also to prove that on account of regular seepage into their land, it has become unusable, partly or completely and if partly, to what extent and if completely, then how? What would also be required to be decided is whether the damage caused to the houses of the petitioner is permanent and perpetual in nature. All these issues would be required to be decided in order to determine as to what extent the loss is caused to the petitioners and on that basis, then to quantify the amount of compensation. These all are the questions which can be decided only if the parties lead evidence in support of their respective cases. The petitioners for this purpose would be required to adduce evidence by producing witnesses and opinion of the experts for assessment of the damage to their land and property. This Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be in a position to entertain all these complex issues involving questions of fact. Only the Civil Court having competent jurisdiction, would be more appropriate remedy for the petitioners to claim compensation or damages, if so advised, by filing a civil suit for such relief. 10. Only the Civil Court having competent jurisdiction, would be more appropriate remedy for the petitioners to claim compensation or damages, if so advised, by filing a civil suit for such relief. 10. It is trite that when a matter involves disputed questions of facts and law, the High Court would be slow in entertaining the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court is a plenary power which is to be used in exceptional circumstances. The petitioners have not been able to make out any such case, which can be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court would not be justified in exercising such a power to the exclusion of other available remedies only when it finds that action of the State or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable and as such is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Punjab National Bank and Others vs. Atmanand Singh and Others, (2020) 6 SCC 256 , held that where the petition raises questions of fact of complex nature, which may for their determination require oral and documentary evidence to be produced and proved by the party concerned, the High Court should be loath in entertaining such writ petition and instead must relegate the parties to the remedy of a civil suit. 11. The Supreme Court in Thansingh Nathmal vs. Sudt. of Taxes, AIR 1964 SC 1419 , held that exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being couched in wide terms and the exercise thereof is not subject to any restrictions except the territorial restrictions, but it is not exercised merely because it is lawful to do so. It was held that very amplitude of the jurisdiction demands that it will ordinarily be exercised subject to certain self-imposed limitations. The following observations of the Supreme Court in Para-7 of the report are useful to quote: “7.....The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is couched in wide terms and the exercise thereof is not subject to any restrictions except the territorial restrictions which are expressly provided in the Articles. But the exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary: it is not exercised merely because it is lawful to do so. But the exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary: it is not exercised merely because it is lawful to do so. The very amplitude of the jurisdiction demands that it will ordinarily be exercised subject certain self-imposed limitations. Resort to that jurisdiction is not intended as an alternative remedy for relief which may be obtained in a suit or other mode prescribed by statute. Ordinarily the Court will not entertain a petition for a writ under Article 226, where the petitioner has an alternative remedy, which without being unduly onerous, provides an equally efficacious remedy. Again the High Court does not generally enter upon a determination of questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right to enforce which the writ is claimed. The High Court does not therefore act as a court of appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal, to correct errors of fact, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy provided by statute for obtaining relief. Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal, or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up.” 12. In Gunwant Kaur vs. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda, (1969) 3 SCC 769 , which was followed in Babubhai Muljibhai Patel vs. Nandlal Khodidas Barot, (1974) 2 SCC 706 , the Supreme Court held that when a writ petition raises disputed questions of fact of complex nature, which may for their determination require oral and documentary evidence, the High Court may decline to entertain such petition. The following observations of the Supreme Court in Para-14 of the report, are relevant to quote: “14. The High Court observed that they will not determine disputed question of fact in a writ petition. But what facts were in dispute and what were admitted could only be determined after an affidavit in reply was filed by the State. The High Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the petition in limine. The High Court observed that they will not determine disputed question of fact in a writ petition. But what facts were in dispute and what were admitted could only be determined after an affidavit in reply was filed by the State. The High Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the petition in limine. The High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in considering the petitioner's right to relief questions of fact may fall to be determined. In a petition under Article 226 the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles. When the petition raises questions of fact of a complex nature, which may for their determination require oral evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is of the view that the dispute may not appropriately be tried in a writ petition, the High Court may decline to try a petition. Rejection of a petition in limine will normally be justified, where the High Court is of the view that the petition is frivolous or because of the nature of the claim made dispute sought to be agitated, or that the petition against the party against whom relief is claimed is not maintainable or that the dispute raised thereby is analogous reasons.” 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are not inclined to entertain these writ petitions, however, with liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy of claiming compensation/ damages before the appropriate Civil Court. 14. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications if any.