Allowed

Land Acquition Collector, Hppcl v. Durga Ram

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Jan 2023RFA/142/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of miscellaneous applications regarding legal representatives of deceased parties. In RFA No.1 of 2023, it allowed the appeal and directed respondents to deposit compensation at Rs.7,00,000 per bigha, following the Kamal Dev judgment. In RFA No.142 of 2016, the appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The award passed by the District Judge was quashed; compensation enhanced to Rs.7,00,000 per bigha; deposit ordered in registry.

Land Acquition Collector, Hppcl Vs Durga Ram — Land Acquisition | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

RFA No.1 of 2023 a/w RFA No.142 of 2016 Date of Decision: 2.01.2023 ____________ ___________________________________________ 1. RFA No.1 of 2023 Durga Ram and others …….Appellants Versus The Principal Secretary(Power) & Others … Respondents 2. RFA No.142 of 2016 Land Acquisition Collector & Anr. …….Appellants Versus Durga Ram & Ors … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶3

For the Appellant(s): Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur and Ms. Shashi Kiran, Advocates for the appellants in RFA No.1 of 2023 and for respondent Nos. 1, 4, 9, to 11, 16,18 to 24, 25, 27 to 61, 63 and 71 to 77 in RFA No.142 of 2016.

¶4

Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate, for the appellants in RFA No.142 of 2016.

¶5

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, for the respondent-State.

¶6

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶7

¶8

Mr. K.S.Daulta, Advocate, for the proforma – respondents.

¶9

_______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶10

JUDGMENT CMP(M) Nos. 1120, 1121,1122,1123 of 2022, 1678, 1679 and 1680 of 2022 in CMP.M No.1423 of 2019

¶11

By way of instant applications filed under Order 22

¶12

Rules 4 and 9 of CPC read with Section 5 of Limitation Act respectively, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicants for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 5, Sh. Gita Ram, respondent No.8, Prabhawati, respondent No. 14, Daulta Ram and respondent No.15, Jaggu Ram alias Jagdish alias Jagdeep, respondent No.25, Prabha Nand alias Parma Nand, respondent No.29, Satya Nand alias Mitra Nand and respondent No.30, Kaushalya, who have expired on 28.6.2011, 15.5.2020, 21.3.2021, 15.1.2007, 8.12.2017, 24.09.2020, and 7.7.2014 ,as is evident from the death certificates placed on record, leaving behind their LRs, as detailed in para-2 of the applications after condoning delay and setting aside abatement, if any. No reply is intended to be filed on behalf of non-applicants/respondents.

¶13

Pursuant to the notice issued in the instant applications, Mr. K.S.Daulta, Advocate has filed Power of Attorney on behalf of proposed LRs. He states that he does not intend to file any reply to

¶14

¶15

the applications and shall have no objection in case prayer made in the applications is allowed.

¶16

Having perused the averments contained in the applications, which are duly supported by the affidavits, this court is convinced and satisfied that delay in maintaining the applications is neither intentional nor willful, rather owing to the circumstances, which were completely beyond the control of the applicants as such, delay, which otherwise stands sufficiently explained, is condoned. Abatement, if any, is also set aside. Since right to sue survives against the persons proposed to be brought on record, this court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made in the instant applications and the same are allowed. Persons as detailed in para2 of the applications are ordered to be substituted in place of deceased respondents No. 5, 8, 14, 15, 25,29 and 30, whose names are ordered to be deleted from array of parties. Registry to carry necessary corrections in the memo of parties, on the basis of amended memo of parties annexed with the applications. Since Mr. K.S.Daulta, Advocate has definite instructions to appear on behalf of the newly impleaded respondents, there is no necessity to issue notice to them. The application stands disposed of.

¶17

¶18

CMP No.11531 of 2022 in CMP(M) No.1423 of 2019

¶19

By way of instant application, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicant for deleting the name of respondent No.35, Smt. Prem Devi, who has expired on 31.03.2019, leaving behind her LRs, who are already on record as proforma respondent Nos. 40 to 43. Since LRs of aforesaid deceased respondent are already on record, there is no impediment in accepting the prayer made in the instant application.

¶20

Consequently, in view of the above, the present application is allowed and name of respondent No.38 is ordered to be deleted from the array of the parties. Registry to carry out necessary correction in the memo of parties on the basis of the amended memo annexed with the application.

¶21

CMP(M) No.1423 of 2019

¶22

By way of instant application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicants/appellants for condonation of delay in filing the accompanying appeal.

¶23

Learned counsel representing the non-applicants/ respondents fairly state that they do not intend to file any reply to the application and shall have no objection in case prayer made in the application is allowed.

¶24

¶25

Having carefully perused the averments contained in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, this Court is convinced and satisfied that delay in maintaining the accompanying appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate, rather same has occurred on the account of the circumstances, which were completely beyond the control of the applicants/appellants and as such, delay of 15 days in filing the appeal, which in my considered view has been sufficiently explained, is condoned. The appeal be registered. The application stands disposed of.

¶26

RFA No.1 of 2023

¶27

By way of aforesaid appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), challenge has been laid to award dated 16.06.2015 passed by learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. in LAC petition No. 05-LAC/4 of 2013. 10. Undisputedly, the suit land belonging to claimant(s), situate in Mohal Dungi Kandyon, Sub-Tehsil Dadahu, District Sirmaur, H.P., as detailed in the award, came to be acquired for public purpose; namely; construction of “Renuka Ji Dam and its submergence area” and acquisition proceedings commenced with the issuance of Notifications under Section 4 of the Act on 26.5.2009. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘LAC’) passed

¶28

¶29

common award No. 610, dated 08.7.2010 and awarded compensation of the acquired land as per the classification and nature of the land mentioned in the award.

¶30

Claimants, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by ‘LAC’, preferred reference petitions under Section 18 of the Act, before the learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, seeking therein enhancement of compensation, awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. Learned District Judge vide impugned award dated 16.06.2015, re-determined the market value of the acquired land and enhanced the same at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per bigha irrespective of nature and classification of land alongwith all statutory benefits as mentioned in the award(s).

¶31

The appellants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid award passed by the learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, have approached this Court by way of instant appeal, praying therein to enhance the award passed by the learned District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan.

¶32

It is not in dispute before this Court that similar situate claimants, whose land also came to be acquired for construction of “Renuka Ji Dam and its submergence area” in the acquisition proceedings commenced with the publication of Notification issued

¶33

¶34

under Section 4 of the Act, had filed land reference petitions before the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, praying therein to enhance the compensation awarded by ‘LAC’ in its award No.704, dated 01.10.2012. Those reference petitions were clubbed and disposed of by common award passed in Reference Petition No.64-LAC/4 of 2015, dated 07.05.2018, wherein the Reference Court re-determined the market value of entire land 10 irrespective of classification and nature of the land on uniform basis and awarded a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- per bigha.

¶35

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid award passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, the respondents in the aforesaid reference petitions, filed different appeals, which came to be disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 09.12.2019 passed in RFA No.171 of 2016, titled as: LAC, HPPCL & Anr. vs. Kamal Dev & Ors., (for short “Kamal Dev’s case”) by holding that Reference Court has rightly determined the enhanced market value of land at the rate of Rs.7,00,000/- per bigha, irrespective of nature and classification of land in its award dated 07.05.2018 respectively.

¶36

Learned counsel, representing the respondents, while fairly acknowledging the factum with regard to passing of judgment dated 09.12.2019 in “ Kamal Dev’s case ” (supra), conceded that

¶37

¶38

claimants-respondents in the case at hand are also entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.7,00,000/- per bigha irrespective of nature and classification of land as per the said judgment. They also acceded to the market value of the land determined in “ Kamal Dev’s case” (supra).

¶39

Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as fair stand adopted by the learned counsel for the respondents, present appeal is allowed and it is ordered that directions contained in “Kamal Dev’s case ” (supra), shall mutatis mutandis apply to the present case also. 17. Respondents are directed to deposit the entire award amount in the Registry of this Court within a period of eight weeks from today, if not already deposited.

¶40

Interim order, if any, is vacated. All the miscellaneous applications are disposed of.

¶41

RFA No.142 of 2016

¶42

In view of the judgment passed in RFA No.1 of 2023, the present appeal is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶43

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶44

02^nd January, 2023 (shankar)

Land Acquition Collector, Hppcl v. Durga Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Land Acquition Collector, Hppcl v. Durga Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brij Bhushan and Others Vs Sandeep Sharma and Others

Gauri Shankar Vs State of Hp

Jasvir Thakur Vs State of Hp

Krishan Kumar Vs State of Hp

Manjit Singh Vs Puran Chand and Anr.

Tarsem Singh Vs State of Hp