Himachal Pradesh High Court
General Manager vs Rattan Dass And Others on 8 May, 2018
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA No. 430 of 2010 and connected matters.
.
Date of decision: 8.5.2018.
1. RFA No. 430 of 2010 General Manager, NHPC and another .....Appellants.
Versus Rattan Dass and others ... ..Respondents.
2. RFA No. 431 of 2010 General Manager, NHPC and another r .....Appellants.
Versus Kamla Devi and others ... ..Respondents.
3. RFA No.432 of 2010 General Manager, NHPC and another .....Appellants.
Versus Thakur Dass and another ... ..Respondents.
4. RFA No.433 of 2010 General Manager, NHPC and another .....Appellants.
Versus Jhabe Ram and others ... ..Respondents.
5. RFA No. 434 of 2010General Manager, NHPC and another .....Appellants.
Versus Bodhu and another ... ..Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2018 23:02:39 :::HCHP 2 6. RFA No.435 of 2010General Manager, NHPC and another .....Appellants.
.
Versus Gajju Ram and others ... ..Respondents.
7. RFA No.436 of 2010General Manager, NHPC and another .....Appellants.
Versus Kalu Devi and others ... ..Respondents. __________________________________________________________ 8. RFA No.437 of 2010 General Manager, NHPC and another r .....Appellants.
Versus Bhag Chand and others ... ..Respondents.
9. RFA No. 438 of 2010General Manager, NHPC and another .....Appellants.
Versus Budh Ram and another ... ..Respondents.
10. RFA No. 439 of 2010General Manager, NHPC and another .....Appellants.
Versus Khim Dassi and others ... ..Respondents.
11. RFA No. 440 of 2010General Manager, NHPC and another .....Appellants.
Versus Kurme Ram and another ... ..Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2018 23:02:39 :::HCHP 3 12. RFA No. 441 of 2010General Manager, NHPC and another .....Appellants.
.
Versus Kurme Ram and another ... ..Respondents.
13. RFA No. 442 of 2010General Manager, NHPC and another .....Appellants.
Versus Chitru alias Chitru Devi and another ... ..Respondents.
For the Appellants For the Respondents:
r :
Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, in all the appeals.
Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel and Mr. Vipul Sharda, Advocates, for the private respondents, in all the appeals.
Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General, with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Mr.Sudhir Bhatnagar, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State in all the appeals. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral).
Since all these appeals arise out of the same award, they were taken up together for consideration and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2018 23:02:39 :::HCHP 4
2. For the sake of convenience and to maintain clarity, facts of RFA No. 430 of 2010, titled as 'General Manager, NHPC vs. Rattan Dass .
and others' are being referred to.
3. Brief facts of the case are that a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'Act') was issued by State of Himachal Pradesh on 9.2.2015 whereby it was proposed to acquire the land situated at Phati-Manyasi, Suchain-Kanon and Kotla, District Kullu, H.P. for the construction of various components of Parbati Hydroelectric Project.
4. After the completion of all codal formalities under the Act, the Collector, after taking into consideration one year average price of the land determined the value of the land on the basis of its quality in the following manner:-
Sr.No. Land Type Rate per Bigha (Rs.)
1. Ropa Awwal 3,56,500.00
2. Ropa Som 1,72,500.00
3. Bathal Awal 2,87,500.00
4. Bathal Dom 1,26,500.00
5. Bathal Som 80,500.00
6. Bathal Chaharam 46,000.00
7. Banjar Kadeem 11,500.00
8. Bageecha Bathal 1,72,500.00
9. Gair Mumkin ---
::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2018 23:02:39 :::HCHP
5
5. The claimants/respondents, being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the award, preferred Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Act .
before the Collector, wherein it was submitted that the market value of the land under acquisition had not been determined in accordance with law and, therefore, the same was liable to be modified and enhanced.
6. That the learned Reference Court after taking into consideration the purpose of acquisition of the land hold the claimants to be entitled to a uniform rate of compensation at ` 2,87,500/- per bigha as had been determined by the Collector.
7. Aggrieved by the award so passed, the beneficiaries have filed these appeals questioning the award on number of grounds as taken in the appeal.
8. At the outset, it may be observed that it is settled principle of law that if the entire land is put for a public use and no area is left out for carrying out any developmental activity, then the claimants are entitled for compensation for the entire acquired land, at uniform rates, regardless of its categorization. This aspect of the case has been considered by a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in RFA No. 282 of 2010 titled Suresh Kumar and others vs. Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC, decided on 22.10.2016 alongwith connected matters, wherein it was observed as under:
::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2018 23:02:39 :::HCHP 6"26. It is a settled principle of law that if the entire land is put for a public use and no area is left out for carrying out any developmental activity, then the claimants are entitled for .
compensation for the entire acquired land, at uniform rates, regardless of its categorization.
27. The apex Court in Haridwar Development Authority vs. Raghubir Singh & others, (2010) 11 SCC 581 has upheld the award of compensation on uniform rates.
28. In Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh and others 2005(12) SCC 564, while determining the compensation for acquisition of land pertaining to five different villages, the apex Court uniformly awarded a sum of `40,000/- per acre, irrespective of the classification and the category of land.
29. Further, in Nelson Fernades vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer 2007(9) SCC 447 while dealing with the case where the land was acquired for laying a Railway line, the Court held that no deduction by way of development charges was permissible as there was no question of any development thereof.
30. Similar view stands taken by this Court in Gulabi and etc. Vs. State of H.P., AIR 1998 HP 9 and later on in H.P. Housing oard vs. Ram Lal & Ors.2003 (3) Shim. L.C. 64, which judgment has attained finality as SLP (Civil) No. 15674-15675 of 2004 titled as Himachal Pradesh Housing Board vs. Ram Lal (D) by LRs & Others, filed by the H.P. Housing Board came to be dismissed by the Apex Court on 16.8.2004.
31. This judgment was subsequently referred to and relied upon by this Court in Executive Engineer & Anr. Vs Dilla Ram {Latest HLJ 2008 HP 1007} and relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Harinder Pal Singh (supra), wherein the market value of the land under acquisition situated in five different villages was ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2018 23:02:39 :::HCHP 7 assessed uniformly, irrespective of its nature and quality, also awarded compensation on uniform rates."
9. Adverting to the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the .
entire land that was acquired was put to public purpose and Power Project stood constructed thereupon. It was used for only one purpose and as such, there cannot be any error in the uniform determination of the market value of the acquired land.
10. That being the legal position, then the award passed by the Collector assumes greater significance as admittedly under Section 25 of the Act, the amount of compensation by the Court cannot be lower than the amount awarded by the Collector and in the instant case, the highest amount is admittedly `2,87,500/- per bigha and, therefore, no infirmity or illegality can be found in the award of the Collector.
11. The learned Advocate General would however contend that since the State of Himachal Pradesh has carried out amendment in Section 25 of the Act whereby the words "or be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under section 11", have been omitted from the main Section, therefore, the Reference Court could not have relied upon the provisions of Section 25 for upholding the award of the Collector.
12. In order to appreciate this submission, it would be necessary to reproduce in entirety the provisions of Section 25 as it stood prior to the ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2018 23:02:39 :::HCHP 8 amendment carried out in that Section w.e.f.24.9.1984 and the same reads as under:
.
"25. Rules as to amount of compensation - (1) When the applicant has made a claim to compensation, pursuant to any notice given under section 9, the amount awarded to him by the court shall not exceed the amount so claimed or be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11.
(2) When the applicant has refused to make such claim or has omitted without sufficient reason (to be allowed by the judge) to make such claim, the amount awarded by the court shall in no case exceed the amount awarded by the Collector.
(3) When the applicant has omitted for a sufficient reason (to be allowed by the judge) to make such claim, the amount awarded to him by the court shall not be less than, and may exceed, the amount awarded by the Collector."
13. The State of Himachal Pradesh vide Himachal Pradesh Act 9 of 1964, has carried out amendment vide Section 5 w.e.f. 24.12.1964 in Section 25 of the Act to the following effect:
"(i) In sub-section (1); omit the words "or be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11";
(ii) In sub-section (3), after the word "Collector", add the words "unless the State Government has required the Collector that a reference be made under Section 18 and the Court is opinion that the amount awarded by the Collector is excessive and should be reduced".::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2018 23:02:39 :::HCHP 9
14. However, Section 25 of the Act came to be substituted by Act 68 of 1984 vide Section 17, w.e.f. 24.9.1984 and the same now reads as .
under:
"25. Amount of compensation awarded by Court not to be lower than the amount awarded by the Collector.- The amount of compensation awarded by the Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section
11."
15. Indubitably, no amendment has been carried out by the State of Himachal Pradesh after substitution of Section 25 as aforesaid.
16. Therefore, in terms of the provisions contained in Section 25 (supra), as it stands today, the award passed by the Reference Court cannot be lower than the amount awarded by the Collector.
17. Apart from the above, it is not in dispute that the awards relating to the similar other purpose were assailed not only by the beneficiaries but even by the claimants and in those cases, the Court has proceeded to award compensation at the rate of Rs.3,56,000/- per bigha (Rs.17,800/- per biswa) as against the compensation of Rs.2,87,500/- per bigha as awarded in this case.
18. Once the award passed by the learned Reference Court have been upheld or rather even enhanced, then in such circumstances no ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2018 23:02:39 :::HCHP 10 interference is warranted especially in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kheda and another .
versus Vasudev Chandrashankar and another (1997) 11 SCC 218, wherein it was held that the judgments and awards of Courts are the best piece of evidence which can safely be relied upon by the Courts while determining the fair market value of the land at the relevant time.
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in these appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed, so also all pending applications, if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
20. Registry is directed to place a copy of this judgment on the files of connected matters.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan), 8th May, 2018. Judge.
(GR) ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2018 23:02:39 :::HCHP