Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Ntpc Limited Kol Dam Barmana vs Chinta & Another on 15 December, 2017

Author: Sanjay Karol

Bench: Sanjay Karol

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA .

                             RFA   No.    614 of 2012 alongwith
                             RFA   No.    615 of of 2012,

RFA No. 616 of 2012 & C.O. No. 352/13, and RFA No. 617 of 2012.

Date of Decision : December 15 , 2017

1. RFA No. 614 of 2012 NTPC Limited Kol Dam Barmana, Distt. Bilaspur ...Appellant Versus Chinta & another ... Respondents

2. RFA No. 615 of 2012 NTPC Limited Kol Dam, Barmana, Distt. Bilaspur ...Appellant Versus Sundru & another ... Respondents

3. RFA No. 616 of 2012 & C.O. No. 352 of 2013 NTPC Limited Kol Dam, Barmana, Distt. Bilaspur ...Appellant Versus Rajender Kumar & others ... Respondents 4. RFA No. 617 of 2012 NTPC Limited Kol Dam, Barmana, Distt. Bilaspur ...Appellant Versus Besria Ram & another ... Respondents Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice.

::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 23:05:28 :::HCHP 2 Whether approved for reporting? No. 1

For the appellant : Mr. Chander Narayan Singh, Advocate, for .

the appellant/NTPC, in all the appeals and also for the non objectors in CO No. 352 of 2013.

For the respondent : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Bansal, Advocate, for respondent No. 1 both in RFA No. 614 and 615 of 2012.

Mr. Pardeep Kumar Gupta, Advocate, vice Mr. P. S. Chandel, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 6 in RFA No. 616 of 2012 and also for the Cross Objectors in CO No. 352 of 2013.

Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate, vice Mr. Trilok Jamwal, Advocate, for respondent No. 1 in RFA No. 617 of 2012.

Mr. Ram Murti Bisht and Mr. R. S. Verma, Addl. Advocate Generals for the respondents/State.

Sanjay Karol, ACJ. (oral) CMP(M) Nos. 1674 and 1675 of 2017 in CO 352/13 For the reasons set out in the application, delay of 22 days in filing the application for bringing on record the legal representatives of Smt. Nagru Devi (Cross Objector/respondent No. 5) who expired on 17.8.2017, which in my considered view has sufficiently been Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 23:05:28 :::HCHP 3

explained, is condoned. The name of cross objector/respondent No. 5 is directed to be substituted with .

that of her legal representatives as per particulars mentioned in para 3 of the application [CMP(M) No. 1675 of 2017]. Abatement, if any, set aside. Amended memo of parties already on record. Applications stand disposed of.

RFA No. 614/2012 a/w RFA No. 615/2012, RFA No. 616/2012 & C.O. No. 352/13 and RFA No. 617/2012.

2. In these appeals, so filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the beneficiary of the acquisition proceedings has assailed the common award dated 11.5.2012, passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P., in Land Reference Pet. No. 1 of 2007, titled as Chinta vs. Land Acquisition Collector, Kol Dam Bilaspur, H.P. & another, alongwith other connected reference petitions. Also in one of the case the claimants have filed the Cross Objection against the said award.

3. Undisputedly claimants' land situate in village Harnora, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. came to be acquired for public purpose namely construction of Kol Dam Hydro Electric Project. Acquisition proceedings commenced ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 23:05:28 :::HCHP 4 with the publication of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 18.10.2000. The Collector Land acquisition .

passed his award No. 5, dated 15.1.2003. It is a matter of record that market value of the acquired land came to be assessed at different rates, classification/category wise ranging from `1,04,416/- to `4,69,955/- per bigha.

Aggrieved thereof, claimants filed land reference petitions under Section 18 of the Act, seeking re-determination of the market value of the acquired land, which stand decided in terms of impugned award dated 11.5.2012, in terms whereof, the market value of the acquired land stands re-

determined @ `4,69,955/- per bigha, on uniform basis, irrespective of the classification and category of land.

4. It is not in dispute that appeals arising out of similarly situated claimants as also very same acquisition proceedings, arising out of very same notifications under Sections 4 and 11 of the Act, already stand dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 1.6.2017, passed in RFA No. 451 of 2012, titled as NTPC Ltd. vs. Brij Lal & another. The present Appeals as also the Cross Objections are squarely covered by the said decision. Such fact is not disputed. As ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 23:05:28 :::HCHP 5 such, as jointly prayed for, the present Appeals as also the Cross Objections stand disposed of, in terms of the said .

judgment. Directions issued in the aforesaid decision shall mutatis mutandis apply to the instant cases also. Pending application(s) if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

(Sanjay Karol), Acting Chief Justice.

December 15 , 2017 (PK) ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 23:05:28 :::HCHP