Rajesh Sharma Vs State of Hp and Others

2024:HHC:13240

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Civil Writ Petition No.829 of 2020 Date of Decision: 04.12.2024

_____________________________________________________________________ Rajesh Sharma ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Somesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. Pawan K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, CGC, for respondent No.5. ___________________________________________________________________________

¶5

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶6

While placing on record communication dated 26.11.2024, issued under the signatures of Deputy Commissioner, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General states that review application filed by respondentNHAI for review of Order dated 04.09.2024 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh (Chairman of the Notified Committee), wherein direction came to be issued to

¶7

2024:HHC:13240

¶8

2

¶9

respondent-NHAI to pay sum of Rs.40,07,674/- to the petitioner qua the damage caused to his house, already stands decided vide communication dated 30.09.2024. Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General states that since Committee, duly notified by the Government of Himachal Pradesh for assessment of damage caused to the property beyond the Right of Way, has already assessed damage and in that regard, necessary directions stand issued to respondentNHAI, it has no option but to pay the aforesaid amount to the petitioner. Mr. Verma further states that though there is no provision, if any, of review, but yet having taken note of submission made by respondent-NHAI, Deputy Commissioner in capacity of Chairman of the Committee, reconsidered the matter and reiterated that petitioner herein is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.40,07,674/-.

¶10

Ms. Shreya Chauhan, learned counsel representing the respondent-NHAI while fairly admitting factum of issuing of communication dated 30.09.2024 by Deputy Commissioner, Solan, contends that objections raised by respondent-NHAI qua evaluation of damage to structure of the petitioner herein has not been considered. While making this Court peruse documents adduced on record by the petitioner, Ms. Chauhan submits that once petitioner himself admitted that house alleged to be damaged during construction of National Highway house was semi-pakka and alleged damage caused to the

¶11

2024:HHC:13240

¶12

3

¶13

house of the petitioner is much less than the amount determined by the Deputy Commissioner, no reliance, if any, can be placed on communication dated 30.09.2024 passed by the Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner. Ms. Chauhan, further submits that report of social audit conducted by SDO (Civil) though reveals that house qua which compensation came to be awarded was kachha , but yet Committee proceeded to award compensation on higher rate.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that house of the petitioner which was admittedly beyond the Right of Way was damaged on account of construction of National Highway-05 (Kalka to Shimla). Since there is no provision under the Act to provide compensation qua the damage, if any, caused to the property beyond the Right of Way, State of Himachal Pradesh with a view to protect the interest of such of the persons whose properties situate beyond Right of Way were damaged, constituted Committees vide Notification dated 08.06.2020 (Annexure R-2/1) wherein Deputy Commissioners of respective Districts along with other members of the Committee have been authorized to assess the damage. Petitioner herein though at first instance approached this Court seeking therein direction to respondent-NHAI to pay compensation, but this Court having taken note of aforesaid Notification issued by the Government of Himachal

¶15

2024:HHC:13240

¶16

4

¶17

Pradesh, reserved liberty to the petitioner to represent before the Committee.

¶18

Pursuant to representation filed by petitioner herein, matter came to be examined by the notified Committee, which after having visited the spot, assessed the damage and directed respondentNHAI to pay sum of Rs.40,07,674/-. Respondent-NHAI being not satisfied with valuation done by the Committee, vide communication dated 23.09.2024 requested Chairman of the Committee i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Solan to reconsider the matter, however, Committee headed by Deputy Commissioner vide communication dated 30.09.2024 rejected the afore prayer made on behalf of respondentNHAI on the ground that it has no power to review the order and on top of everything, objections sought to be raised in the application filed for reconsideration have already been taken note of, while passing Order dated 04.09.2024.

¶19

Since pursuant to Order dated 04.09.2024, power to determine the compensation qua the damage caused to the property beyond the Right of Way, vests in Committee headed by Deputy Commissioner of the respective District, coupled with the fact that Project Director of NHAI was also one of the members of the Committee, respondent-NHAI cannot be permitted at this stage to

¶20

2024:HHC:13240

¶21

5

¶22

raise question with regard to correctness of the assessment made by the Committee qua the damage caused to the house of the petitioner.

¶23

Leaving everything aside, Order dated 04.09.2024, which was further reiterated vide communication dated 30.09.2024 passed by Committee has attained finality. Though, serious attempt came to be made by Ms. Shreya Chauhan, learned counsel representing the respondent-NHAI to rebut aforesaid report by stating that same is not based upon proper appreciation of facts, but such prayer of her deserves outright rejection for the reason that, while assessment was being done by the Committee, Project Director of NHAI was also present and report submitted by Committee also bears his signatures.

¶24

Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent-NHAI to comply with the Order dated 04.09.2024, further reiterated vide communication dated 30.09.2024, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of eight weeks, failing which, petitioner would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of Order dated 04.09.2024 passed by Deputy Commissioner. Compliance affidavit be filed within two weeks, after expiry of time given to respondents i.e. eight weeks.

¶25

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶26

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶27

December 04, 2024 Rajeev Raturi

Rajesh Sharma v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Sharma v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Athens Life Sciences Vs Hpsebl and Others

Tara Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

M/S Chadha and Company Vs Union of India

Sushma Devi Vs Gm Indian Bank and Another

M/S Eastman Auto and Power Ltd. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Lekh Ram Vs Payal Behel