WPMS/2322/2012 of PITAMBAR DUTT HATWAL and OTHERS Vs TEHRI HYDRO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and ORS on 29 December 2017

Reserved Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (M/S) No.2322 of 2012

Pitambar Dutt Haatwal & others

……. Petitioners

Versus

Tehri Hydro Development Corporation & others

…..… Respondents

Mr. M.S. Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate, for the respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. B.S. Parihar, S.C., for the State/respondent no.4.

Dated: December 29, 2017

’Honble Rajiv Sharma , J.

Petitioners are the local and permanent residents of Village Jaisal and their predecessors also lived in the same village since time immemorial. According to them, they are dependent on farming. In the year 2006-2007, a Hydro Electric Project under the name ‘Vishnugad Pipalkoti Hydro Electric Project’ of 440 M.W. was launched in District Chamoli. Respondent Corporation has acquired 2.597 hectare of land (under Stage-II) vide the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) dated 9.11.2006. Section 6 Notification was issued on 8.11.2007. Further, 4.281 hectares of land (under Stage-III) was acquired vide Section 4 Notification dated 10.9.2008 and Section 6 Notification dated 30.6.2009.

Respondent-Tehri Hydro Development Corporation India Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘THDC’) has framed Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy for the Project. The Policy has two options i.e. Option-I and Option-II. The affected person could choose any of the options as per his choice. Option-I was based on National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy-2007, wherein, besides compensation paid by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, provision of various grants were available. Option-II was based on the negotiated settlement.

Petitioners have opted for Option No.2 as per the meeting held on 21.6.2008 under the Chairmanship of District Magistrate, Chamoli. The elected Gram Pradhan of the Village and other villages participated in the meeting on behalf of Jaisal Village. According to Option No.II, petitioners agreed for negotiated settlement as land rate to be paid @Rs.1.00 lakh per Nali inclusive of land compensation, interest and solatium and Rehabilitation and Resettlement grants. Compensation towards houses/trees was also paid as per the provisions of the Act.

Again, a meeting was held on 3.3.2009 under the Chairmanship of S.D.M. (Chamoli) in which newly elected Gram Pradhan Jaisal besides other villagers participated. Under Point No.3 of the said meeting, the villagers again gave their consent for the agreed rate at Rs.1.00 lakh per Nali under the negotiated settlement. There were 113 affected titleholders out of which 95 titleholders have already received compensation from the Special Land Acquisition Officer and have signed the agreement with the Corporation towards full and final settlement under negotiated settlement (Option-II). Petitioners have admitted in paragraph no.13 tHaat they have also received the compensation.

Case of the petitioners, precisely, is tHaat in the adjoining Village Haat, Patwari Circle Kodiya, Tehsil & District Chamoli, the land was acquired in the year 2006. Villagers of Village Haat were allowed the compensation @Rs.1.00 lakh per Nali which included the cost of land, solatium and interest. But in addition to this, they were paid a sum of Rs.10.00 lakh per family as rehabilitation and reestablishment package.

According to the reply filed by the respondents, the entire land of Village Haat was acquired but the land of Village Jaisal was partially acquired. The person whose partial land has been acquired constitutes a distinct class vis-à-vis the villagers whose entire land has been acquired. There are seven villages whose land was acquired by the THDC. However, only a part of land has been acquired from 06 villages including Village Jaisal. These villagers were not re-located. However, as noticed hereinabove, the entire land of seventh village i.e. Village Haat (except Harsari Hamlet) was acquired. In other words, the villagers were re-located to other places on self-resettlement basis. The entire land measuring 20.337 hectare was acquired from Village Haat.

Though, the petitioners have projected tHaat they were dependent on farming but as per the report, petitioner no.1-Pitamber Dutt Haatwal was running a grocery shop in Siyasain-Jaisal in a house already acquired by the project for which he has already received the compensation. Petitioner No.2-Janki Prasad along with his son Chandra Ballabh Dandriyal runs a tea shop in a house/shop already acquired by the project for which he has already received the compensation. Petitioner No.3- Tara Dutt Purohit, besides farming, is also undertaking small contracts on behalf of co-operative society namely ‘Shram Jeevi Bahoudesiaya Swatya Sahakari Samiti’. Petitioner No.4- Smt. Subhaga Devi has two sons who are in service and her one daughter-in-law is also in service. All the petitioners, till date, are having houses in the village. The respondent-Corporation has acquired only part of the land of petitioners and major chunk of land is intact with them.

Petitioner no.1- Pitamber Dutt Haatwal owns 0.20 hectare (9.93 Nali) land in Village Jaisal and only 0.0203 hectare land (1.1018 Nali) has been acquired. Petitioner no.2- Janki Prasad owns 0.58 hectare (28.87 Nali) land in village Jaisal out of which only 0.0617 hectare (3.089 Nali) land has been acquired. Petitioner no.3- Tara Dutt Purohit owns 0.59 (29.73 Nali) hectare land in village Jaisal out of which only 0.0477 hectare (2.389 Nali) land has been acquired. Petitioner No.4- Smt. Subhaga Devi owns 0.13 hectare (06.57 Nali) land in village Jaisal out of which only 0.0232 hectare (1.164 Nali) land has been acquired.

Petitioner No.1 Pitamber Dutt Haatwal is having his house in Khasra No.1153 and a cowshed in Khasra No.1275 which has been acquired. The compensation towards acquisition has been paid to him. Petitioner No.2 Janki Prasad is having his house in Khasra No.1203. His land measuring 0.0617 hectare (3.089 Nali) was also acquired. Compensation towards acquisition has been paid to Janki Prasad. Petitioner No.3 Tara Dutt is having house in Khasra No.1203 which has been acquired. Land measuring 0.0477 hectare (2.389 Nali) of Tara Dutt was acquired and the compensation towards acquisition has been paid to him. Petitioner no.4 Smt. Subhaga Devi is having her house in Khasra No.1257 which has been acquired. Land measuring 0.0232 hectare (1.164 Nali) belonging to petitioner no.4 has also been acquired. The petitioner no.4 has received the compensation from the Special Land Acquisition Officer towards the acquired land.

Conclusion

Petitioners themselves have agreed for payment of compensation through Option-II as per the Meeting held on 21.6.2008. Once they have elected for Option-II, they are now estopped from changing their stand. It was for the petitioners either to choose from Option-I or Option-II.

Now, as far as Village Haat is concerned, it stands on a different footing. The entire land of Village Haat measuring 20.337 hectare has been acquired. However, for Village Jaisal, the land measuring 6.878 hectare has been acquired. The villagers of Village Haat have been re-located in a new area. Petitioners are enjoying the facilities and infrastructure in the existing village Jaisal. The meeting was again convened on 3.3.2009. The villagers have again agreed for Option-II. Now, as far as Village Haat is concerned, the meeting was held on 26.6.2009. Petitioners have made representations for treating them at par with Village Haat but the same was rejected by the competent authority vide the impugned order 28.2.2012. Order dated 28.2.2012 is a speaking and detailed order issued by the Senior Manager of the respondent-Corporation. The total land of village Jaisal is 31.919 hectare out of which only 6.878 hectare land has been acquired. Petitioners have already accepted the compensation. Petitioners cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold. Now, as far as Village Haat is concerned, it is a case of displacement of the entire village causing villagers immense hardship. Moreover, the petitioners have already entered into an agreement with the respondent-Corporation and have accepted the compensation.

Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of as such.

Rdang

(Rajiv Sharma, J.)