RFA/360/2018 on 31 December 2019

1. RFA No. 360 of 2018 Raj Kumar ...Appellant Versus Land Acquisition Collector, HPPCL & others …..Respondents.

2. RFA No. 361 of 2018 Raj Kumar ...Appellant Versus Land Acquisition Collector, HPPCL & others ...Respondents

3. RFA No. 376 of 2018 Om Parkash and others ...Appellants Versus Land Acquisition Collector, HPPCL & Ors. …..Respondents. _________________________________________________________________

4. RFA No. 362 of 2018 G.M., Renukaji Dam Project, & others …..Appellants. Versus Karam Chand and others …..Respondents.

5. RFA No. 365 of 2018 G.M., Renukaji Dam Project and others …..Appellants. Versus Raj Kumar

…..Respondent.

6. RFA No. 366 of 2018 G.M., Renukaji Dam Project and others …..Appellants. Versus Raj Kumar.

…..Respondent.

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 . No For the Appellant(s): Mr. Ashok K. Tyagi, Advocate, for the appellants in RFA Nos. 360, 361 and 376 of 2018 and Mr. Vikas Mishra,

Advocate,

for

the appellants in RFA Nos. 362, 365 and 366 of 2018. For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Mishra, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 3 in RFA Nos. 360, 361 and 376 of 2018.

Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General, with Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, Addl. A.G., and Mr. Narinder Thakur, Dy.A.G, for respondent No.

2. Mr. Ashok K. Tyagi, Advocate, for respondents No.5, 8,9 and 11 to 14 in RFA No. 362 of 2018 and for sole respondent No.1 in RFA Nos. 365 and 366 of 2018. Respondents No.1 to 4, 6 and 7 in RFA No. 362 of 2018 exparte. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral) CMP No. 15937 of 2019 in RFA No.376 of 2018 Allowed as prayed for. The names of respondents No. 4 to 10 are ordered to be deleted from the array of the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes respondents, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. Amended memo of parties accompanying the application is taken on record and necessary corrections, if any, be carried out. CMP No. 15932 of 2019 in RFA No. 362 of 2018 Allowed as prayed for. The name of respondent No. 10 is ordered to be deleted from the array of the respondents, subject to all just exceptions. Legal representatives of deceased respondent No.10 is already on record as respondents No.11 to

13. Application stands disposed of.

2. These appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment, since the question involved therein is the same.

3. In these appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the claimants as well as beneficiary(ies)/ have assailed the awards passed by the learned Reference Court.

4. Certain facts are not in dispute. For public purpose, namely, construction of Renukaji Dam and its submergence area namely Mohal Deed Bagad, Sub Tehsil Dadahu, District Sirmaur, H.P., the State initiated acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Act. Notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Act for the aforesaid Mohal was issued on

18.11.2008 and published in the Rajpatra on 19.11.2008 in RFA Nos.361, 362, 366 and 376 of 2018. The Collector Land Acquisition passed Award No.653 dated 6.8.2012 qua this Mohal. Notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Act for the aforesaid Mohal was issued on 24.7.2009 and published in the Rajpatra on 11.8.2009 in RFA Nos. 360 and 365 of 2018. The Collector Land Acquisition passed Award No. 654 dated 6.8.2012 qua this Mohal. Though the claimants/appellants demanded market value of the acquired land @ Rs.10 lacs per bigha and Rs.25 lacs per bigha, respectively, however, the Collector Land Acquisition, determined the same classification-wise.

5. Aggrieved thereof, Reference Petitions came to be filed by different claimants, which were adjudicated, in terms of the impugned awards. Rejecting the evidence led by the parties, i.e. exemplar sale deeds etc., relying upon the discussion made by the Collector in his award, the Reference Court enhanced the market value of the land falling in the various categories of the land i.e. Abad Awal/Abad Doam, Banjar Jadeed, Banjar Kadeem, Nakbil, Gair Mumkin and Ghasni. The highest value of the land has been assessed Rs.7,00,000/- per bigha by the Collector, therefore, the same rate was payable with respect to the entire land under other classified categories.

6. The issue, which this Court is called upon to determine is as to whether such re-determination of the market value is in consonance with the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by LRs vs. State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789, or not?

7. The law for award of compensation at uniform rates, when the purpose of acquisition is common and no developmental activity is required to be carried out is no longer res integra and stands settled by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Viluben Jhalejar (supra); Himmat Singh and others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another, (2013) 16 SCC 392 (para 34); Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Dead ) By Legal Representatives and others Versus State of Karnataka and another , (2015) 10 SCC 469 (paras 80 and 81); as also this Court in RFA No. 953 of 2012, titled as Land Acquisition Collector & another Versus Jatinder Singh, decided on 01.06.2016 and other connected matters.

8. It is a settled principle of law that if the land is fully utilized for public purpose, which in the instant case is construction of Renukaji Dam and its submergence area and that no further developmental activities were required to be carried out, the claimants would be entitled to the compensation on uniform basis, irrespective of its classification and category.

This is also the position reiterated in Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan’s case (supra).

9. The record reveals that rate for the best classification of land in Mohal in question was Rs.7 lacs. Under these circumstances, the impugned award, passed by the learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., is modified and the appeals filed by the claimants are allowed with the highest rate given by the Land Acquisition Collector and the claimants are held entitled to compensation @ Rs.7,00,000/- per bigha, irrespective of its classification and category alongwith interest and all statutory benefits as per law. Insofar as appeals filed by the beneficiary(ies) are concerned, the same are dismissed.

10. All the appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.

11. The General Manager, Renukaji, HPPCL, Dadahu, District Sirmaur is directed to deposit the entire awarded amount, if already not deposited, within a period of eight weeks from today. 31st December, 2019 (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) (GR) Judge