CRIMINAL APPEAL 7032 of 2010 on 30 December 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

CWP No. 7032 of 2010-H Date of Decision: 30.12.2013

Shobha Ram

………Petitioner.

Versus

National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited

…..Respondents.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?[1]No.

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. K.D.Shreedhar, Senior Advocate with Ms.Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2.

Mr. R.S. Verma, Addl. AG, for respondents No.3 to 5.

Sanjay Karol, J (oral)

Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “a) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari quashing Annexure P-12 dated 30.10.2010 along with the three member committee report dated 30.10.2010 appended therewith.

b) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus directing respondents No.1 and 2 to pay to the petitioner an amount of Rs.21,69,908 as value of compensation assessed by State machinery itself for damage caused to the house of the petitioner on account of blasting carried out by Respondents No.1 and 2 for construction of tunnel 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

along with interest and such further damages as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts of the case. c) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus directing respondents to acquire 3 Bighas of land comprised in Khasra No.1326/1194 Khatta Khatauni No.372/410 as per jamabandi for the year 2002-2003 Phati Dushad, Kothi Banogi, Sub Tehsil Sainj District Kullu Himachal Pradesh.”

2. Annexure P-12 is the report dated 30.10.2010, forwarded by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Banjar to the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu.

3. Respondent No.1 is setting up a Hydro Power Project in District Kullu and Mandi, H.P. The project envisages different construction activities to be carried out at different places. Components of the project include construction of tunnel; construction of barrage and construction of power house.

4. Petitioner has his house in village Bhali Phati Dusad, Kothi Banogi, Sub Tehsil Sainj, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. According to the petitioner, respondent No.1 negligently carried out construction in a manner that it caused severedamage to his house/property, which fact stands refuted by respondent No.1.

5. Issue of damage to the property of the petitioner and payment of compensation, if any, was in fact examined by the officials of the State. Three Member Committee consisting of Naib Tehsildar, Sainj, Assistant Engineer (Buildings & Roads) Banjar and representative of respondent No.2 was constituted. They visited the spot on 30.01.2010 and after assessing, quantified thedamages caused to the petitioner’s property to be of `21,16,908/-. Tehsildar directed respondent No.1 to deposit this amount which was not done.

6. The fact of the matter is that respondent No.1 seriously disputed this liability. As such, Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, constituted a separate Committee. This Committee consisting of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Banjar, Chief (Geo.), PHEP-III and S.M. (R&QC), PHEP-III visited the spot and submitted its report, which stands forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, vide communication dated 30.10.2010 (Annexure P-12). As per this report, no damage is caused to the petitioner’s property. Now significantly at the time when this Committee visited the spot and inspected the site, petitioner was not associated. Petitioner has placed on record photographs prima facie showing that there are cracks, which have developed in his property. Whether such cracks are as a result of construction carried out by the respondents or not has to be examined afresh only after affording opportunity to all concerned, including the present petitioner.

7. As such, on this short ground alone, petition is allowed and Report dated 30.10.2010 (Annexure P-12), qua the petitioner is quashed with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, to constitute a fresh Committee comprising of technical experts of respondent No.1-Organization and experts of the State Geology Department. This Committee shall visit the spot after issuing notice to the petitioner and ascertain as to whether any damage was caused to the house/property of the petitioner on account of construction carried out by the respondent No.1 in and around the area in question. If that be so, then damages shall also be got assessed from the revenue officials. Needful shall positively be done on or before 30.04.2014.

With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of, as also, pending application(s), if any.

December 30, 2013(Purohit)

(Sanjay Karol), Judge.