Himachal Pradesh High Court
Parkash Chand & Others vs State Of H.P. & Others on 27 December, 2016
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA
Regular Second Appeal No.436 of 2006.
.
Judgment Reserved on: 05.12.2016.
Date of decision: 27.12.2016
Parkash Chand & Others ....Appellants-Plaintiffs
Versus
State of H.P. & Others ..Respondents-Defendants
of
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Sandeep Sharma,Judge.
Whether approved for reporting ?1
rt Yes.
For the Appellants: Mr.Anand Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondents 1 & 2: Mr.P.M. Negi, Additional
Advocate General with
Mr.Ramesh Thakur, Deputy
Advocate General.
For Respondent No.3: Mr.Sameer Thakur, Advocate
vice Mr.Rajnish Maniktala,
Advocate.
Sandeep Sharma,J.
This appeal has been filed by the appellants-
plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 22.6.2006, passed by the learned District Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., reversing the judgment and decree dated 5.8.2005, passed by learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), Chamba, District Chamba, whereby the suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs has been decreed.
1Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:31 :::HCHP 22. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant-plaintiffs (herein after referred to as the `plaintiffs'), .
filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,50,000/- from the defendants being compensation amount in lieu of employment which was to be offered to the family members of oustees of Chamera Hydro Electric Project, Stage-II (NHPC). It is averred by the plaintiffs that the land belonging to them had of been acquired on behalf of defendant No.3, Chamera Hydro Electric Project, Stage-II (NHPC) vide notification under rt Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 28.4.1988 and during the process of acquisition through private negotiation list of 120 families, whose land had been acquired, was prepared by defendant No.3 as 'oustees'. It is further averred by the plaintiffs that their names figured at Sr.No.11 of the list of oustees, whereas name of Smt.Ghimo, mother of the plaintiffs, figured at Sr.No.21. It is stated that on 18.11.2002 a High Power Committee constituted by the Government decided that a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- be awarded to the affected families, who were not given any employment as agreed at the time of negotiation between the claimants and Chamera Project Authorities. It is averred by the plaintiffs that uniform rate of compensation i.e. at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per bigha was decided to be paid by defendant No.3, whereas the land valued about Rs.4,00,000/- per ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:31 :::HCHP 3 bigha. It is further alleged in the plaint that defendant No.3 had deposited Rs.2,50,000/- for each of the 120 families, .
whose names figured in the list of oustees, and the said amount was deposited on 21.7.2003 with defendant No.2 for payment. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that they approached defendant No.2 for release of Rs.2,50,000/-, but the same was refused without assigning any valid reason. It is further of alleged by the plaintiffs that their parents were having land in the same area to the extent of 3-2 bighas, which was also rt acquired and their names figured at Sr.No.21 in the list, as referred to above, but as their father, namely, Premo had died on 28.3.1994, the name of their mother Smt.Ghimo was shown as one of the oustees in place of their father being widow. It is further averred by the plaintiffs that their mother Smt.Ghimo had died on 7.3.2002, leaving behind Class-I legal heirs. It is also averred by the plaintiffs that since they were not given amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, despite being oustees, as stated above, they were constrained to file Civil Writ Petition No.673/2003, which was withdrawn by them on 23.9.2003 with permission to file Civil Suit in the competent Court of law. Suit in question has been filed by the plaintiffs claiming recovery of Rs.2,50,000/- with costs and interest at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. 22.7.2003 with the prayer that the same be decreed.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:31 :::HCHP 43. Defendants No.1 and 2, by way of filing written statement, raised various preliminary objections qua .
maintainability, suppression of material facts and locus standi. On merits, defendants admitted the plaintiffs to be resident of village Jukhradi and owners of land measuring 3- 2-16 bighas. It is averred by the defendants that the above said land was owned by the father of plaintiffs, namely, of Premo son of Madho son of Paraga, which had been acquired through private negotiation during 1988 vide award rt No.2/1988, dated 31.12.1988 in Mohal Karian by NHPC Chamera Project6-II. It is further averred by the defendants that the plaintiffs were not owners of the land measuring 4-9-0 bighas, as this land was infact owned by one another Premo son of Mussadi son of Kundan resident of village Karian. Thus, the plaintiffs have no locus standi as they are suppressing the true facts just to take this benefit twice. It is also alleged that the plaintiffs alongwith their sisters, who are legal heirs of deceased Premo son of Madho, have already been paid sufficient package of Rs.2,50,000/-, which were acknowledged by them and other legal heirs. It is further alleged that at the time of disbursement of package, an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- has been disbursed against Sr.No.21 in the list of oustees to the plaintiffs being legal heirs of Sh.Premo son of Madho. The defendants admitted ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:31 :::HCHP 5 that matter was discussed in the State Level Meeting held under the Chairmanship of Chief Minister and thereafter .
High Level Committee was constituted in which 120 families had been identified, who were the land owners and were given sufficient package of Rs.2,50,000/- each in lieu of employment. It is further asserted that perusal of list of oustees clearly shows that the land measuring 4-9-0 bighas of was owned by Premo son of Mussadi son of Kundan, which has no concern with the plaintiffs and that the names of rt plaintiffs No.1 and 2 have been wrongly mentioned in the list of oustees due to typing mistake against entry made at Sr.No.11. In the aforesaid background the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. Defendant No.3 also, by way of filing written statement, resisted the suit by raising preliminary objections of jurisdiction and that there was no cause of action against defendant No.3, since the entire amount of land acquired by defendant No.3 has been deposited with defendants No.1 and 2 with regard to land acquired for Chamera Stage-II. It is further alleged by defendant No.3 that no cause of action arose by filing of CWP No.673/2003 by the plaintiffs and subsequently withdrawal thereof. In view of above, defendant No.3 prayed for dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiffs.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:31 :::HCHP 65. The plaintiffs filed replication, whereby they again reaffirmed their own case and refuted the case of .
defendants as pleaded in the written statement.
6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-
"1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of Rs.2.50 lacs from the defendants as alleged? OPP.
of
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged? OPD 1 and 2.
3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus rt standi to file the present suit as alleged? OPD.
4. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this case as alleged? OPD.
5. Relief."
7. Learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 5.8.2005 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs against defendants No.1 and 2 for recovery of Rs.2,50,000/-, however, dismissed against defendant No.3
8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, appellants-defendants No.1 and 2 filed an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short `CPC') read with Section 21 of the H.P. Courts Act, assailing therein judgment and decree dated 5.5.2008 passed by ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:31 :::HCHP 7 learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), Chamba, in the Court of learned District Judge, Chamba.
.
9. Learned District Judge, Chamba vide impugned judgment and decree dated 22.6.2006 accepted the appeal preferred by the defendants by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court.
10. In the aforesaid background the present of appellants-plaintiffs filed this Regular Second Appeal before this Court.
11. rtThis second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:
"(1) Whether the findings of the learned lower appellate court are based upon misreading of evidence and calls for an interference by this court?
12. Mr.Anand Sharma, learned counsel representing the appellants-plaintiffs, vehemently argued that the judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same is not based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the appellants-plaintiffs and as such same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Mr.Sharma, while referring to the evidence available on record, contended that learned first appellate Court while reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court has mis-read and mis-
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:31 :::HCHP 8construed the record and has returned the erroneous findings that the plaintiffs are not entitled for compensation .
to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- on account of financial package announced by the defendants payable to the oustees in lieu of employment to their family members. Mr.Sharma further contended that it stands duly proved on record that the names of plaintiffs were figuring at Sr.No.11 of the list of of oustees prepared by the Department, on the basis of information submitted by the Authorities who had acquired rt the land on behalf of NHPC. Mr.Sharma further contended that learned first appellate Court failed to appreciate that the names of the plaintiffs were included in the list of oustees at Sr.No.11 in the independent capacity since their land measuring 17 biswas was also acquired by the respondents on behalf of NHPC for construction of Dam.
13. With a view to substantiate the aforesaid contentions, Mr.Sharma invited the attention of this Court to Ex.PA i.e.; Jamabandi for the year 1988-89, wherein names of plaintiffs have been reflected as owners in possession of land measuring 0-17 biswas, comprised in Khata No.209/220, Khatauni No.289, Khasra No.196, which was not inherited by the plaintiffs from their parents, but they had purchased the same from the Central Government and such land comprised in Khata No.205 min, Khatauni No.285 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:31 :::HCHP 9 min, Khasra Nos.46, 86 was acquired independently of Khasra No.196 which actually belonged to their parents.
.
Mr.Sharma further contended that learned first appellate Court completely ignored mutation No.653 i.e. Ex.PL, whereby the names of the plaintiffs, on the basis of Sale Certificate issued by the Central Government, were incorporated in the Revenue Records and thereafter their of names were reflected in the names of list of oustees prepared by the Department for the purpose of granting financial rt package in terms of understanding arrived at between the NHPC as well as the State Government.
14. Mr.Sharma further contended that learned first appellate Court erred in not taking into consideration the specific plea taken by defendants No.1 and 2 that the plaintiffs-appellants were not entitled for the compensation amount against the name reflected at Sr.No.11 in the list of oustees because the same belonged to one Shri Premo son of Shri Mussadi having 14-9 bighas of land. Mr.Sharma also stated that there is no evidence led on record in this regard by the defendants and as such learned trial Court rightly drawn an adverse inference against defendants No.1 and 2 for having failed to establish the specific plea raised by them in the written statement. In the aforesaid background, Mr.Sharma prayed that suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:31 :::HCHP 10 be decreed and the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court may be quashed and set aside.
.
15. Mr.P.M. Negi, learned Additional Advocate General duly assisted by Mr.Ramesh Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, supported the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court. Mr.Negi vehemently argued that the bare perusal of judgment passed of by the first appellate Court suggests that the same is based upon correct appreciation of evidence available on record rt and there is no illegality and infirmity in the same and the same needs to be upheld. While refuting the contention having been put forth on behalf of Mr.Anand Sharma, Mr.Negi stated that it duly stands proved on record that on account of land, the plaintiffs, being sons of Premo, had already received financial package alongwith other family members to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- qua the land which was acquired for the construction of Dam by the said Authorities and as such they were estopped from filing independent claim of financial package on the ground that since their land measuring 17 biswas was also acquired in independent capacity, they are also entitled to financial package to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/-. Mr.Negi further stated that appellants-plaintiffs have no concern with the another financial package sanctioned in the name of Premo son of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:31 :::HCHP 11 Mussadi son of Kundan and as such learned appellate Court rightly concluded that the plaintiffs cannot be allowed to .
take advantage of typographical mistake crept during preparation of list of oustees. While concluding his arguments, Mr.Negi, while referring to the statement of Tehsildar (Relief & Rehabilitation), strenuously argued that if for the sake of arguments it is presumed that 17 biswas of of land, independent of land measuring 3-2-16 bighas, owned by their father was also acquired apart from land measuring rt 3-2-16 bighas, even then it stands proved that the same was also included in the aforesaid land measuring 3-2-16 bighas and accordingly financial package to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- was made in favour of the plaintiffs as well as other legal representatives of late Shri Premo son of Madho.
While concluding his arguments, Mr.Negi strenuously argued that once it stands duly proved on record that the plaintiffs are the sons of late Shri Premo, whose land measuring 3-2-16 bighas has admittedly been acquired and qua the same compensation has been given to him and as such they cannot be allowed to claim financial package independently on account of their names reflected at Sr.No.11 in the list of oustees because aforesaid financial package is payable to the oustees in terms of negotiation held with the claimants and National Hydroelectric Power ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:31 :::HCHP 12 Corporation Limited (for short `NHPC') Authorities. In the aforesaid background, Mr.Negi prayed that present petition .
may be dismissed.
16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
17. Close scrutiny of pleadings as well as documents available on record suggests that defendants acquired huge of chunk of land for the construction of Chamera Hydro Electric Project, Stage-II, Karian, Tehsil and District rt Chamba, H.P. through a private negotiation held with the claimants and National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited (for short `NHPC') Authorities. Record further suggests that in lieu of land acquired by the Authorities, uniform compensation at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per bigha was paid to all the affected persons. It has been specifically pleaded in the pleadings of both the parties that at the time of acquisition of land, Memorandum of Understanding (for short `MOU') was entered into between the State Government as well as defendant No.3-Chamera Hydro Electric Project, wherein condition was stipulated that one member of the family of oustees would be provided job in upcoming Project.
Perusal of Ex.PC, i.e. proceedings of meeting of High Powered Committee held on 18.11.2002, suggests that Authorities decided to give alternative package in lieu of employment to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:31 :::HCHP 13 the affected families @ Rs.3,00,000/- in cases of Chamera-I and Rs.2,50,000/- per affected family in cases of Chamera-
.
II. Perusal of aforesaid document further suggests that it was agreed that amount in question would be given in one installment to Chamera-II and in two equal installments to Chamera-1. With the declaration of aforesaid package, no claim from any person regarding employment in Chamera-I of and Chamera-II was to be entertained by the Authorities as far as employment is concerned. It also emerge from the rt record that after aforesaid decision having been taken, the Authorities concerned prepared list of oustees so that due and admissible compensation in terms of aforesaid decision having been arrived at between defendants No.1, 2 and 3 is paid to the affected families whose land was acquired for the construction of Project. In the present case plaintiffs;
namely; Parkash Chand, Baldev and Mohinder, who admittedly are sons of sons of late Shri Premo son of Shri Madho, residents of village Jukhrari, P.O. Bharis Kothi, Tehsil and District Chamba, H.P. filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,50,000/- in terms of financial package announced by the Authorities in lieu of employment to one member of the affected families. As per plaintiffs, they owned and possessed land measuring 3-2-16 bighas in the name of Smt.Ghimo wife of late Shri Premo. Plaintiffs further claimed ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:31 :::HCHP 14 that apart from above, they had land measuring 4-9 bighas at village Karian, Tehsil and District Chamba, which was .
also acquired by the State of Himachal Pradesh for and on behalf of defendant No.3 vide notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 28.4.1988. Plaintiffs, on the basis of list of 120 families prepared by the Authorities, claimed that they being oustees, whose names figured at of Sr.No.11, are also entitled to the financial package to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/-, but despite several requests their rt claim has not been entertained by the Authorities. As per own case of the plaintiffs, their parents were having land in the same area which was also acquired by the Authorities and they were also included in the list of oustees at Sr.No.21. It is admitted case of the plaintiffs that on account of acquisition of land measuring 3-2 bighas belonging to their parents they had received financial package to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- which was lateron received by all the Legal Representatives including plaintiffs in equal share. In nutshell plaintiffs' case is that since 17 biswas of land independent of 3-2 bighas of land owned and possessed by their parents was also acquired for the purpose of construction of Project, they are also entitled to financial package announced by the Authorities in lieu of employment to one member of the family in independent capacity.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:31 :::HCHP 1518. On the other hand, defendants refuted the claim of the plaintiffs by stating that plaintiffs have no concern .
with the another financial package sanctioned in favour of Shri Premo son of Mussadi son of Shri Kundan, whose name has been reflected at Sr.No.11 of the list of oustees.
Defendants further claimed that the plaintiffs cannot be allowed to take advantage of typographical mistake of committed by the staff while preparing list of oustees. As per defendants, plaintiffs being legal heirs of Shri Premo son of rt Shri Madho son of Shri Parago, have no concern with the land of Shri Premo son of Shri Mossadi son of Shri Kundan and as such they cannot take the benefit of financial package twice, especially when it is admitted case of the plaintiffs that they have already received financial package of Rs.2,50,000/- on account of land measuring 3-2-16 bighas owned and possessed by their father Premo son of Madho.
19. Interestingly, in the present case, plaintiffs initially claimed that their land measuring 4-9 bighas at village Karian Tehsil and District Chamba was acquired by the State of Himachal Pradesh on behalf of NHPC and as such they are entitled to financial package on account of the same in terms of their names figuring at Sr.No.11 in the list of oustees.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:31 :::HCHP 1620. While refuting the stand having been taken by defendants in the written statement, plaintiffs by way of .
replication claimed that they filed suit being owners of land measuring 0-17 bighas, comprising of Khasra No.196, as depicted in Jamabandi for the year 1988-89. Plaintiffs further claimed that note appended in red ink in the aforesaid Jamabandi clearly suggests that land in question of was acquired by the State of Himachal Pradesh for NHPC on 31.3.1994. Plaintiffs further claimed in the replication that rt their father namely; Premo; was owner in possession of 3-2- 16 bighas, whereas they are owners to the extent of 0-17 bighas of land which was entered in their names and had allegedly purchased it from custodian department vide mutation No.633 attested on 28.2.1989. Plaintiffs in their replication have categorically stated that amount of package has been rightly sanctioned in their names, but in the column of land it has been wrongly mentioned as 4 bighas 9 biswas of land.
21. Learned trial Court on the basis of documentary evidence adduced on record decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and held them entitled to the amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, whereas, learned first appellate Court in appeal having been filed by the defendants reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and came to the conclusion ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:31 :::HCHP 17 that the plaintiffs have already availed the package of Rs.2,50,000/- qua the land which was earlier in the name of .
their late father Shri Premo son of Shri Madho which was passed to them after the death of their mother, Smt.Ghimmo. Learned first appellate Court also concluded that land measuring 0-17 bighas, comprising of Khasra No.196, which was allegedly purchased by the plaintiffs from of the custodian department already stood included in the land of Smt.Ghimmo widow of Shri Premo son of Shri Madho and as such, rt no separate compensation to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- can be claimed by the plaintiffs qua the land measuring 0-17 bighas. Learned first appellate Court also observed that plaintiffs have already availed package to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- being legal heirs of late Smt.Ghimmo widow of late Shri Premo alongwith their sisters being Class-
I heirs and as such they cannot be allowed to claim the aforesaid package again and again on the strength of name reflected qua Sr.No.11 in the list of oustees.
22. In the instant case, plaintiff Mohinder Kumar, with a view to prove his case appeared as PW-1 and stated that 17 biswas of land owned and possessed by them had been acquired by defendant No.3, but none of the plaintiffs was provided job. He also stated that his father also owned land in village Jukhrari which was acquired by NHPC but ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:31 :::HCHP 18 since he alongwith his other two brothers were not provided job by NHPC, they were held entitled to financial package to .
the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- each. It is the admitted case of the plaintiffs that they have already received an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on account of financial package announced by the respondents in lieu of job. Whereas, defendants with a view to refute the claim of plaintiffs cited one Shri of Sirikanth, Naib Tehsildar (R&R), D.C. Office, Chamba, who in his statement deposed that Land Acquisition cases are rt being dealt with by him in the capacity of Naib Tehsildar (Relief & Rehabilitation). He also stated that defendant No.3 had deposited an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- for all the oustees of Chamera-II. He also stated that the plaintiffs filed present suit with regard to land of other person namely;
Premo son of Mussadi son of Kundan and they have no connection with the same. He also stated that land measuring 17 biswas, comprising Khasra No.196, Ex.PA, is already included in the land measuring 3-2-16 bighas and the land shown vide Ex.PB had also been shown/entered in the award Mark DA which also includes some other land besides the land shown vide Ex.PA and Ex.PB in the names of Premo son of Madho.
23. This Court with a view to ascertain the genuineness and correctness of aforesaid statements having ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:31 :::HCHP 19 been made by Shri Sirikant, Naib Tehsildar (Relief & Rehabilitation) perused documentary evidence available on .
record. While going through the record, this Court could lay its hand to Ex.PM i.e. certificate issued by Land Acquisition Officer, Chamera Hydro Electric Project, Karian, District Chamba. Perusal of aforesaid certificate suggests that land measuring 2-5-16 bighas owned and possessed by Premo of son of Madho son of Parago, resident of Mohal Karian, Tehsil and District Chamba, Hadbast No.174, Khatauni rt No.106/164 min, Kitta 5, measuring 3-2 bighas was acquired by NHPC vide award dated 31.12.1988. It also emerge from this certificate that total area of the land was 3- 4 bighas and Shri Premo son of Madho had 1/3rd share in the same and as such he was owner in possession of the land measuring 2-5-16 bighas. It clearly emerge from Ex.PM that NHPC had acquired 2-5-16 bighas of land belonging to Premo son of Madho son of Parago, resident of village Karian vide award dated 31.12.1988. Since aforesaid land was acquired by the defendants, family members of late Shri Premo were entitled to financial package as per understanding arrived at between the Authorities. It is also not disputed that qua the aforesaid land having been acquired by the defendants, plaintiffs being LRs of Premo son of Madho received complete financial package which was ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:31 :::HCHP 20 further divided into equal shares of the legal representatives of deceased Premo son of Madho. Now, if Ex.PA and Ex.PB .
having been placed on record by the plaintiffs are perused, land measuring 3-2 bighas, which was in the name of their father late Shri Premo, was acquired. As per own case of plaintiffs, as stated in replication, land measuring 17 biswas comprising Khasra No.196 was acquired by the defendants of independently of land measuring 2-5-16 bighas owned and possessed by their father late Shri Premo. But perusal of rt Ex.PA and Ex.PB clearly suggests that land measuring 3-2- 16 bighas in total belonging to late Shri Premo son of Madho son of Parago was acquired by the defendants which clearly corroborates the version put forth on behalf of Shri Sirikanth, Tehsildar (Relif & Rehabilitation), D.C. Office, Chamba. He categorically stated that land measuring 17 biswas comprising in Khasra No.196 was already included in land measuring 3-2-16 bighas at the time of passing award Mark DB. If land measuring 17 biswas is added to 2-5-16 bighas, it exactly comes 3-2-16 bighas, meaning thereby that learned first appellate Court rightly came to conclusion that land measuring 17 biawas comprising in Khasra No.196 Ex.PA stands included in land measuring 3-2-16 bighas and as such plaintiffs are not entitled to another financial package in lieu of employment since they have already ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:31 :::HCHP 21 received financial package to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- on account of acquisition of their land measuring 3-2-16 .
bighas. Hence, this Court after perusing aforesaid documents Ex.PM, Ex.PA and Ex.PB, sees no illegality and infirmity in the findings returned by the first appellate Court and by no stretch of imagination it can be said that first appellate Court misread and misconstrued the documentary of evidence available on record while denying the claim of plaintiffs.
24.
rt
Similarly, list of persons, who have
applied/submitted their family details for employment in Chamera Hydro Electric Project Stage-II, suggests that name of Smt.Ghimo Devi widow of Premo i.e. father of plaintiffs was reflected at Sr.No.21. It also emerge from the list that land measuring 3-2-0 bighas was acquired. Similarly, at Sr.No.11 of the list, name of some Parkash son of Premo resident of village Jukhrari has been shown, but, the name of the land owner whose land was acquired by the NHPC has been shown as Premo son of Mussadi. More interestingly qua the name at Sr.No.11 land measuring 4-9-0 bighas has been shown to be acquired by the Authorities.
25. Since total land acquired qua Sr.No.11 has been shown to be 4-9-0 bighas, version put forth on behalf of the plaintiffs that his name stands figured at Sr.No.11 cannot be ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:31 :::HCHP 22 accepted for two reasons; firstly, name shown at Sr.No.11 is of Parkash son of Premo son of Mussadi, secondly, qua .
Sr.No.11, 4-9-0 bighas land has been shown to be acquired by the Authorities, whereas, as per own case of plaintiffs 17 biswas of land owned and possessed by them independent of their father was acquired. This Court, after carefully examining the particulars given qua Sr.No.11 in the list of of oustees has reason to accept the version put forth on behalf of defendants that Parkash son of Premo son of Mussadi is rt different from plaintiffs and they are not entitled to second financial package on account of 17 biswas of land owned and possessed by them independent of their father. This Court after carefully examining the aforesaid aspect of the matter is convinced and satisfied that land measuring 17 biswas owned and possessed by the plaintiffs was included by the authorities while passing award and thereafter the plaintiffs being LRs of late Shri Premo son of Shri Madho son of Shri Parago has received an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on account of financial package in lieu of job which was to be offered to one member of the family of the oustees whose land was acquired by the Authorities for construction of Project.
26. This Court also viewed this case from another angle. As per understanding arrived at between Government and the NHPC, one member of the family was to be offered ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:31 :::HCHP 23 employment in lieu of acquisition of their land but lateron it was resolved that in lieu of employment one time financial .
package to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- would be provided to the affected family. Hence, this Court sees no force in the claim of the plaintiffs that since 17 biswas of land owned and possessed by them independent of their father was acquired by the Authorities, they are also entitled to of financial package because admittedly financial package is payable in lieu of employment which was to be offered to one rt member of the family.
27. In the present case, since it is admitted case of the parties that financial package to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- stands received by all the Legal Representatives of deceased Premo, there is no force in the claim of the plaintiffs and as such same was rightly rejected by the first appellate Court. Hence, this Court, after examining the evidence available on record, sees no force in the contentions having been put forth on behalf of the plaintiffs that learned first appellate Court, while reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, misread and misconstrued the evidence. Rather, perusal of evidence available on record clearly suggests that the learned trial Court failed to arrive at correct decision on the basis of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:31 :::HCHP 24 evidence available on record. Substantial question is answered accordingly.
.
28. In view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this appeal is dismissed. The judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court below is upheld and that of the learned trial Court is quashed and set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim order, if any, stands of vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.
(aks)
rt
December 27, 2016 (Sandeep Sharma)
Judge
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:31 :::HCHP