NTPC Ltd. Vs State of Hp and Others

2025:HHC:19095

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CWP Nos. 2149 of 2024 a/w CWP Nos. 2150, 2151, 2153, 2156 to 2159, 2207 to 2220, 2152, 2154, 2155, 2160 and 2161 of 2024 Decided on : 19.06.2025

¶4

1. CWP No. 2149 of 2024 NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power Corporation Limited).

¶5

…Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents 2. CWP No. 2150 of 2024 NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power Corporation Limited). …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents 3. CWP No. 2151 of 2024 NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power Corporation Limited). …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others.

…Respondents

2

2025:HHC:19095

4. CWP No. 2153 of 2024 NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power Corporation Limited).

¶10

…Petitioner

¶11

Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents 5. CWP No. 2156 of 2024 NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power Corporation Limited). …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents 6. CWP No. 2157 of 2024 NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power Corporation Limited). …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents 7. CWP No. 2158 of 2024 NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power Corporation Limited). …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others.

…Respondents

3

2025:HHC:19095

8. CWP No. 2159 of 2024 NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power Corporation Limited).

¶16

…Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents 9. CWP No. 2207 of 2024 NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power Corporation Limited). …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents 10. CWP No. 2208 of 2024 NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power Corporation Limited). …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents

¶19

11. CWP No. 2209 of 2024 NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power Corporation Limited).

¶20

…Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others.

…Respondents

4

2025:HHC:19095

12. CWP No. 2210 of 2024 NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power Corporation Limited).

¶25

…Petitioner

¶26

Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents 13. CWP No. 2211 of 2024 NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power Corporation Limited). …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents 14. CWP No. 2212 of 2024 NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power Corporation Limited). …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents 15. CWP No. 2213 of 2024 NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power Corporation Limited). …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents

¶27

5

¶28

2025:HHC:19095

¶29

16. CWP No. 2214 of 2024 NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power Corporation Limited).

¶30

…Petitioner

¶31

Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents 17. CWP No. 2215 of 2024 NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power Corporation Limited). …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents 18. CWP No. 2216 of 2024 NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power Corporation Limited). …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents 19. CWP No. 2217 of 2024 NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power Corporation Limited). …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents

¶32

6

¶33

2025:HHC:19095

¶34

20. CWP No. 2218 of 2024 NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power Corporation Limited).

¶35

…Petitioner

¶36

Versus

¶37

State of Himachal Pradesh and others.

¶38

…Respondents

¶39

21. CWP No. 2219 of 2024 NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power Corporation Limited).

¶40

…Petitioner Versus

¶41

State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondentspondentsondents 22. CWP No. 2220 of 2024 NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power Corporation Limited).

¶42

…Respondentspondentsondents

¶43

…Petitioner Versus

¶44

State of Himachal Pradesh and others.

¶45

…Respondents

¶46

23. CWP No. 2152 of 2024 NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power Corporation Limited).

¶47

…Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others.

…Respondents

7

2025:HHC:19095

24. CWP No. 2154 of 2024 NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power Corporation Limited).

¶52

…Petitioner

¶53

Versus

¶54

State of Himachal Pradesh and others.

¶55

…Respondents

¶56

25. CWP No. 2155 of 2024 NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power Corporation Limited).

¶57

…Petitioner Versus

¶58

State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondentspondentsondents 26. CWP No. 2160 of 2024 NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power Corporation Limited).

¶59

…Respondentspondentsondents

¶60

…Petitioner Versus

¶61

State of Himachal Pradesh and others.

¶62

…Respondents

¶63

27. CWP No. 2161 of 2024 NTPC Limited (Formerly known as National Thermal Power Corporation Limited).

¶64

…Petitioner

¶65

Versus

¶66

State of Himachal Pradesh and others.

…Respondents

8

2025:HHC:19095

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes

¶71

For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate, with M/s Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal, Amit Kumar Dhumal and Richta Thakur, Advocates, for the petitioner(s), in respective petitions.

¶72

For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents-State, in all petitions.

¶73

Mr. Surender Verma, Mr. Varun Rana and Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocates, for the respective respondents, in respective petitions.

¶74

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral )

¶75

As common issues of law and facts are involved in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of vide a common judgment.

¶76

Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of these writ petitions are that an Award was announced on 29.04.2006,

¶77

i.e. Award No. 48 of 2006, for acquisition of land measuring 5316-3 bighas in Village Panjolth, Hadbast No. 246, Tehsil Sunder

¶78

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

¶79

9

¶80

2025:HHC:19095

¶81

Nagar, District Mandi, H.P, for the construction of Koldam Hydro Power Project by NTPC Limited, a Government of India Undertaking, copy whereof is on record. Certain land owners, whose land stood acquired, preferred Reference Petitions under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the above mentioned Award. The Reference Petitions were answered by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, camp at Sunder Nagar, in terms of Annexure P-2, dated 22.03.2014, appended with CWP No. 2149 of 2024, i.e. Reference Petition No. 71 of 2008, titled Mehar Chand & Ors. Vs. The Land Acquisition Collector & anr. Along-with other connected matters. In terms thereof, the compensation awarded by learned Land Acquisition Collector was enhanced in the following terms:-

¶82

“23. In view of the discussion made above, the reference petitions are answered accordingly and the market value of the acquired land is held to be Rs.5,00,000/- per bigha irrespective of the kind and nature of the land at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act and the petitioners are also held entitled to the following relief:

¶83

10

¶84

2025:HHC:19095

¶85

a) solatium @ 30% under Section 23 (2) of the Act on the compensation assessed under Section 23(1) of the Act;

¶86

b) additional compensation under Section 23 (a-A) of the Act @ 12% per annum on the market value determined above from the date of publication of the notification under Sec. 4 of the Act, till date of award of Collector; c) interest @ 9% per annum on enhanced amount of compensation under Section 23(1), additional compensation under Section 23 (1-A) and solatium under Section 23 (2) of the Act from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act for the fist one year and thereafter, @ 15% per annum. 06 MAR 2024; d) interest under Section 34 of the Act if not paid.”

¶87

The private respondents in these cases did not prefer any Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Act against the Award passed by learned Land Acquisition Collector. However, after the Reference stood decided by the Court of learned District Judge, they preferred applications under Section 28-A of the Act. The applications filed by them under Section 28-A of the Act, were not filed within three months from the date of the Award i.e. the period prescribed in

¶88

11

¶89

2025:HHC:19095

¶90

the Act. All the applications were filed on 16.07.2014. It is a matter of record that when the applications under Section 28-A of the Act were filed by the private respondents herein, none of their applications were accompanied by a certified copy of the Award. In other words, the applications filed under Section 28-A of the Act were filed beyond limitation and were not accompanied by certified copies of the Award announced by the learned Additional District Judge, on the strength whereof, enhancement was being prayed by the land owners/private respondents herein.

¶91

The petitioners herein, in response to the applications, took a preliminary objection that the petitions preferred under Section 28-A of the Act, were barred by limitation.

¶92

In terms of the impugned orders, which are all akin as far as findings are concerned and are verbatim the same, the applications preferred under Section 28-A of the Act, were allowed by learned Land Acquisition Collector on 28.12.2017 (copy of one of such orders is appended with CWP No. 2149 of 2024 as Annexure P-5). In terms of said order, the

¶93

12

¶94

2025:HHC:19095

¶95

compensation was enhanced in terms of the Award passed by the learned Additional District Judge and the objection of the present petitioners with regard to the maintainability of the applications filed under Section 28-A of the Act, on the ground of limitation, was rejected by observing that along-with the private respondents herein, another land owner had preferred an application under Section 28-A of the Act, who had appended a certified copy of the Award and, therefore, it was not necessary for all the applicants to file certified copies of the Award, as the application filed by said land owner, was filed within limitation.

¶96

The order passed by learned Land Acquisition Collector was assailed by the petitioners under Section 28-A (3) of the Act before learned Additional District Judge, Sunder Nagar. The Reference Petitions were dismissed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sunder Nagar vide order dated 16.11.2023 by, inter alia, holding that in terms of the provisions of Section 28-A (3) of the Act, it was a person who had not accepted the Award under sub-Section (2) of Section 28-A of the Act, who could move a written application

¶97

13

¶98

2025:HHC:19095

¶99

to the Collector requiring the matter to be referred by the Collector and because the petitioners before him were the beneficiaries of the Award, therefore, they were not covered under Sub-Section (3) of Section 28-A of the Act.

¶100

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner(s) i.e. NTPC has preferred these writ petitions.

¶101

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners argued that the orders passed by learned Land Acquisition Collector, in terms whereof, the plea of the petitioners that the applications preferred by the land owners under Section 28-A of Act, were time barred, stood rejected and the enhanced amount stood awarded in favour of the land owners, are not sustainable in the

¶102

eyes of law. Learned Senior Counsel by referring to the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act submitted that a land owner, who intended to take benefit of Section 28-A of the Act, ought to have approached the Authority within three months as from the date of the passing of the Award, along-with a certified

¶103

copy of the Award and the period which was consumed in obtaining of the certified copy, was only to be deducted while calculating the period of limitation. He submitted that in the

¶104

14

¶105

2025:HHC:19095

¶106

present case, incidentally none of the land owners either approached the Authority within the period of limitation nor any of their applications were accompanied by a certified copy of the Award. This extremely important aspect of the matter was ignored by learned Land Acquisition Collector, while rejecting the contentions of the petitioners that the applications were time barred. Accordingly, he submitted that as the orders in issue are per se bad, the same are liable to be set aside.

¶107

As far as the order passed by Learned Additional District Judge on the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 28-A (3) of the Act is concerned, learned Senior Counsel candidly submitted that said applications, in fact, stood erroneously filed, but filing of the same and adjudication thereof in the year 2023, at least demonstrates that the petitioners were pursuing their remedy bona-fidely, though before a wrong Forum. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the Reference was filed by the petitioners, under Section 28-A (3) of the Act, immediately after the orders were passed by the Collector on the applications filed by the land owners under Section 28-A of the Act, Reference whereof was made by the

¶108

15

¶109

2025:HHC:19095

¶110

Collector to the learned Additional District Judge, Sunder Nagar, in the year 2018.

¶111

Learned counsel for the private respondents, on the other hand, defended the order passed by learned Land Acquisition Collector. They submitted that the land owners though initially did not file the certified copies of the Award, but when an office objection was raised, thereafter, certified copies of Award were filed by them. Accordingly, they submitted that as the irregularity was cured, therefore, the order passed by the Authority cannot be set aside on the grounds, as stand agitated before this Court by the petitioners. Learned counsel further submitted that otherwise also, as the land owners indeed were entitled for the benefit, as was vested in them, by the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act, the technical pleas being raised by the petitioners herein, should not come in between the land owners and their actually getting the best price of the land, which undisputedly stands acquired and utilized by the petitioners. They further submitted that otherwise also, as one of the land owners, had approached the Collector, whose application was duly supported by a certified copy of the Award

¶112

16

¶113

2025:HHC:19095

¶114

and as all the land owners were placing reliance upon the said Award, therefore, also the contention of the petitioners that the order passed by the Collector is bad, is liable to be rejected. Learned counsel for the private respondents further submitted that otherwise also, these petitions stood filed belatedly against the order passed by the Authority in the year 2017 and, therefore also, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. They also relied upon certain judgments which I will refer to at a later stage. On this count, they prayed that the petitions being devoid of any merit, be dismissed.

¶115

A perusal of the response filed by the State in the matters demonstrates that it has admitted the stand of the petitioners that the applications filed by land owners were time barred. None of the land owners except one, who incidentally is not a party respondent in any of these writ petitions, filed certified copy of the Award, benefit of which was being claimed by them, along-with the applications preferred under Section 28-A of the Act. Learned Advocate General also submitted that the order passed by the Collector was bad.

¶116

I have heard Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned Senior

¶117

17

¶118

2025:HHC:19095

¶119

counsel and Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, learned counsel, for the petitioners as well as Mr. Surender Verma, Mr. Varun Rana and Mr. Vikrant Chandel, learned counsel, for the private respondents and also the learned Advocate General.

¶120

The moot issue to be determined by this Court is whether the order passed by learned Land Acquisition Collector dated 28.12.2017, on the applications filed by the private respondents, under Section 28-A of the Act, is sustainable in law or not. The validity of this order has to be seen from the perspective of the fact that the applications filed under Section 28-A of the Act, were not filed within the statutory period prescribed in Section 28-A of the Act.

¶121

Section 28-A of the Act reads as under:- “28-A. Re-determination of the amount of

¶122

compensation on the basis of the award of the Court.

¶123

- (1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector

¶124

18

¶125

2025:HHC:19095

¶126

may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court:

¶127

Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded. (2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub-section (1), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants.

¶128

(3) Any person who has not accepted the award under sub-section (2) may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be,

¶129

19

¶130

2025:HHC:19095

¶131

apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under section 18.”

¶132

A perusal of Sub-Section (1) of Section 28-A of the

¶133

Act demonstrates that where in an Award under Part 3 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Court allows the applicant (land owner), any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under Section 4 (1) and who are also aggrieved by the Award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18 of the Act, by written application to the Collector “ within three months from the date of the award of the Court” require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court. 16. Proviso to Sub-Section (1) further provides that while computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this SubSection (1), the day on which the Award was pronounced and the time spent for obtaining a copy of the Award shall be

20

2025:HHC:19095

excluded.

In the present case, the Award was announced by

¶138

the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, on 22.03.2014. Three months elapsed on 22.06.2014, even in terms of the impugned order passed by the Collector. The applications under Section 28-A of the Act, were filed by the private respondents herein on 16.07.2014 i.e. after the period of 90 days. The applications were not accompanied by certified copies of the Award. This means that as on the date when the land owners preferred the applications under Section 28-A of the Act, before the Collector, the period of limitation had already expired. Because the applications were accompanied by uncertified copies of the Award, therefore, there was no occasion for the Authority to grant them the benefit of the date on which the certified copy of Award would have been applied by the land owners and the day when certified copy thereof was prepared by the Copying Agency. Therefore, undisputedly, the applications filed under Section 28-A of the Act were beyond the period of limitation.

¶139

Further, a perusal of Section 28-A of the Act

¶140

21

¶141

2025:HHC:19095

¶142

demonstrates that there is no provision in the said Section that a time barred application can be entertained by the Authority and the Authority has power to condone the delay.

¶143

In this backdrop, when one peruses the impugned order, one finds that the objection that was raised by the petitioners on the maintainability of applications on the ground of limitation, has been dealt with by the Collector in the following terms:-

¶144

“ मि�सल हजा बराय बैहस मि�नांक 17-11-2017 को पेश हुई। �ोनो पक्षों को मि�स्तारपू��क सुना गया। �ा�ीगणों के अमि"�क्ता ने प्रार्थ�ना पत्र �ेंउठाए गयेतथ्योंको�ोहरातेहुए तक� मि�या मिक �ाननीय अमितमिरक्त मिजला न्याया"ीश �ण्डी ( मिह०प्र० ) के घोमि0त की�त भूमि� के अनुसार उसके�ु�मिकलोंकीअमिज�त भूमि� का �ुआ�जा अ�ा मिकया जाकर अस्�ीकार की जा�े। प्रत्यार्थी� के अमि"�क्ता ने मि�तक� मि�या मिक यह अपील स�य सी�ा के बाहर �ायर की गई है। प्रार्थी�गणों को 22-032014 के आ�ेशों के मि�रूद्ध मि�नांक 24-06-2014 तक U/S 28A का प्रार्थ�ना पत्र �ायर करना चामिहए र्था परन्तु यह प्रार्थ�ना पत्र मि�नांक 16-07-2014 को �ायर की गई है। इसमिलए प्रार्थ�ना पत्र खाज� की जा�े। प्रार्थी�गणों के अमि"�क्ता ने प्रत्युतर �ें तक� मि�या मिक केस न 0 50/2014 शी0�क जगरनार्थबना�एल०ए०सी० केसार्थअन्य 29 केस भू अज�न काया�लय �ेंएक सार्थ मि�नांक 16-07-2014 को �ायर मिकये गये हैं। इसमिलए केस न 0 50/2014 स�य सी�ा केअन्�रहैतोअन्य �ा�ले भी उसी आ"ार पर स्�ीकार मिकया जाये। क्योंमिक सभी �ा�ले एक ही

¶145

22

¶146

2025:HHC:19095

¶147

आ�ाड� / गां� केहैं तर्था �ैंने सभी फाइलों को Consolidate करनेहेतू पार्थ�ना पत्र भीमि�या है। इसयोअमितमिरक्त यमि� �ैंसभीप्रार्थी�गणोंको एकहीअपील जगरनार्थ�ें�ज�करता तोस�य सी�ा का प्रश्नहीपै�ा नहींहोता। इसमिलए बोस न० 51/2014 ता 79/2014 �ेंप्रमित�ा�ीद्वारा उठाईगईस�य सी�ा बारेआपमि= व्यर्थ�हैक्योंमिक �ाननीय सुप्री� कोर्ट� AIR 2017 सुप्री� कोर्ट� 4069 के�� न० 14 �ेंतीन �हीनेबीत जानेके बा� भीस�य सी�ा को�ाफ मिकया है। इसीप्रकार AIR 1995 सुप्री� कोर्ट� 2259 �ें भी अपीलार्थी� के हक �ें फैसला सुनाया है इसमिलए प्रार्थ�ना पत्र स्�ीकार कीजाये।

¶148

�ोनों पक्षों को सुनने � मि�सल के सार्थ शा�ल �स्ता�ेजों का गहन अध्ययन करने उपरांत पाया गया मिक �ा�ीगणों ने �ाननीय अमितमिरक्त मिजला न्याया"ीश �ण्डी (I) मिजला �ण्डी ( मिह०प्र० ) के अ�ाड� �र केस न० 71/2008 मि�नांक 22-03-2014 के आ"ार पर भू अज�न अमि"मिनय� 1894 की"ारा 28 ए केतहत प्रार्थ�ना पत्र मि�नांक 16-072014 को�ायर कीहै। जबमिक भू अज�न अमि"मिनय� केप्र�ा"ान अनुसार मि�या� अ�मि" 90 मि�न मि�नांक 22-06-2014 तक पुरे होते र्थे। प्रार्थी�गणोंकेअमि"�क्ता नेमि�नांक 16-07-2014 कोएक अन्य अपील केन० 50/2014 शी0�क जगरनार्थबना�एनर्टीपीसी�ायर कीहै। मिजस�ें उसने �ाननीय अमितमिरक्त मिजला न्याया"ीश �ण्डी (1) मिजला �ण्डी ( मिह०प्र० ) केअ�ाड�कैस न 0 71/2008 मि�नांक 22-03-2014 कीआ�ाड� कीनकल प्राप्त करनेहेतू मि�नांक 25-03-2014 कोप्रार्थ�ना पत्र �ायर मिकयाहैऔर उसे 19-06-2014 कोनकल प्राप्तहुईहै। इस प्रकार 1906-2014 से प्रार्थी�के 87 मि�न मि�या� के र्थे। उसने 27 मि�नों के अन्�र �ायर कीहै जो अन्�र मि�या� है। यह प्रार्थ�ना पत्र भी प्रार्थी�गणों के

¶149

23

¶150

2025:HHC:19095

¶151

अमि"�क्ता द्वारा मि�नांक 16-07-2014 को ही �ायर की गई है। मिजसे स्�ीकार मिकया जाना न्याय संगत है। इसके अमितमिरक्त �ा�ीगणों के अमि"�क्ता द्वारा �ायर की गई AIR 2017 सुप्री� कोर्ट� 4069 के �� न 0 14 � AIR 1995 सुप्री� कोर्ट� का अ�लोकन करने उपरांत पाया गया मिकंअनपढ गरीब जनता कोस�य सी�ा �ेंछूर्ट�ीगईहै। इसमिलए �ाननीय अमितमिरक्त मिजला न्याया"ीश �ण्डी (1) मिजला �ण्डी ( मिह०प्र० ) द्वारा घोमि0त अ�ाड��र कैस न० 71/2008 तारीख फैसला 22-03-2014 शी0�क �ेहरचन्� आमि� बना� एल०ए०सी० के �ाध्य� से �ू अज�न स�ाहता� के अ�ाड� न 0 48/2006 मि�नांक 29-04-2006 �ें संशो"न मिकया हैजो �ुहाल पंजोलठ तह० सुन्�रनगर मिजला �ण्डी से सम्बमिन्"त है। मिजसकी अमि"सूचना अ"ीन "ारा -4 मि�नांक 07-12-2000 को जारी हुईहै। इस अमि"सुचना के अ"ीन प्रत्येक �ा�ी की 0-5-12 बीघा भूमि� �ुहाल पंजोलत �ें कोलबां" पमिरयोजना हेतु अमिज�त हुई है। इसमिलये �ा�ीगण उपरोक्त �मिण�त भूमि� का भू अज�न अमि"मिनय� की"ारा -28 ए के अंत�गत संशोमि"त �ुआ�जा प्राप्त करनेकाहक रखतेहैं।”

¶152

The contents of the order passed by the Collector quoted by me hereinabove demonstrate that the Collector held that except one application i.e. Case No. 50 of 2014, none were filed within the period of limitation. That being the case and further in view of the fact that none of the applications filed by the present respondents were accompanied by a certified copy of the Award, it is not understood as to how limitation viz-à-viz the present land owners was calculated by the Collector on the

¶153

24

¶154

2025:HHC:19095

¶155

strength of the documents filed by some other land owners.

¶156

This Court has no hesitation in holding that as far as the compliance of Section 28-A of the Act is concerned, the same is sacrosanct. A land owner, who approached the Court under Section 28-A of the Act, is to comply with the conditions mentioned therein. This means that the land owner has to approach the Court within three months of the Award having been passed in a Reference made by some other land owner under Section 18 of the Act. He cannot file an application under Section 28-A of the Act as per his own convenience, ignoring the provisions of limitation.

¶157

As far as the issue of limitation is concerned, the same has to be construed individually for each applicant, taking into consideration the application filed by each land owner to be an individual and independent case in itself. This extremely important aspect of the matter has been completely ignored by learned Land Acquisition Collector while deciding these cases.

¶158

He ignored that each application preferred under Section 28-A of the Act, was a separate application/case. He ignored that each application was liable to be scrutinized independently and

¶159

25

¶160

2025:HHC:19095

¶161

separately as to whether it was satisfying the test of limitation or not. He ignored that there was nothing known as consolidation as far as the calculation of limitation is concerned and consolidation of matters could have been done only for the purpose of final adjudication, if all were found to be within limitation. Therefore, as the applications preferred by the private respondents herein under Section 28-A of the Act were filed beyond the period of limitation, the Authority had no jurisdiction to either entertain them or to decide them on merit, by treating them as having been filed within limitation on the strength of a certified copy of the Award filed by some other land owner in his own independent case.

¶162

At this stage, this Court would like to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in (2013) 10 SCC 765, titled Popat Bahiru Govardhane and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, which judgment incidentally relates to the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act and rejection of the application on the ground of limitation. In the said judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring to certain other judgments passed earlier, has been pleased to

¶163

26

¶164

2025:HHC:19095

¶165

hold that it is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. This statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim

¶166

dura lex which means “the law is hard but it is the law”, stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, “inconvenience is not” a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute. The relevant portion of said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶167

“11. Section 28-A of the Act reads as under:

¶168

“28-A. Redetermination of the amount

¶169

of compensation on the basis of the award

¶170

of the court. —(1) Where in an award under this Part, the court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification

¶171

27

¶172

2025:HHC:19095

¶173

under Section 4 sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be redetermined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the court:

¶174

Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded.”

¶175

12. In Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer & Anr., AIR 1961 SC 1500, this Court dealt with the issue of limitation while dealing with an application under Section 18 of the Act, and it was observed therein that unless a party had knowledge of the order, the question of approaching the appropriate forum challenging the order, does not arise. Therefore, it

¶176

28

¶177

2025:HHC:19095

¶178

is the date of the knowledge from which the limitation

¶179

would start. The Court observed :

¶180

“6.....The knowledge of the party affected

¶181

by the award, either actual or constructive, being an essential requirement of fairplay and natural justice the expression…….In our opinion, therefore, it would be

¶182

unreasonable……..

¶183

11. ...where the rights of a person are

¶184

affected by any order and limitation is prescribed for the enforcement of the remedy by the person aggrieved against the said order by reference to the making of the said order, the making of the order must mean either actual or constructive communication of the said order to the party concerned…”

¶185

13. This Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Mangatu Ram & Ors. (supra); and Tota Ram v. State of U.P. & Ors. (supra), dealt with the issue involved herein and held that as the Land Acquisition Collector is not a court and acts as a quasi judicial authority while making the award, the provisions of the Act 1963 would not apply and, therefore, the application under Section 28A of the Act,

¶186

29

¶187

2025:HHC:19095

¶188

has to be filed within the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 28A of the Act. The said provisions require that an application for re-determination is to be filed within 3 months from the date of the award of the court. The proviso further provides that the period of limitation is to be calculated excluding the date on which the award is made and the time requisite for obtaining the copy of the award.

¶189

14. In State of A.P. & Anr. v. Marri Venkaiah & Ors. (Supra), this Court reconsidered the aforesaid judgments including the judgment in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh (supra) and held that the statute provides limitation of 3 months from the date of award by the court excluding the time required for obtaining the copy from the date of award. It has no relevance so far as the date of acquisition of knowledge by the applicant is concerned. In view of the express language of the statute, the question of knowledge did not arise and, therefore, the plea of the applicants that limitation of 3 months would begin from the date of knowledge, was clearly unsustainable and could not be accepted. The Court also rejected the contention of the applicants that a beneficial legislation should be given a liberal interpretation

¶190

30

¶191

2025:HHC:19095

¶192

observing that whosoever wants to take advantage of the beneficial legislation has to be vigilant and has to take appropriate action within time limit prescribed under the statute. Such an applicant must at least be vigilant in making efforts to find out whether the other land owners have filed any reference application and if so, what is the result thereof. If that is not done then the law cannot help him. The ratio of the judgment in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh (supra) was held to be non-applicable in case of Section 28- A of the Act. The Court observed:

¶193

“11…….In that case, the Court interpreted the proviso to Section 18 of the Act and held that clause (a) of the proviso was not applicable in the said case because the person making the application was not present or was not represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award. The Court also held that notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) was also not issued, therefore, that part of clause (b) of the proviso would not be applicable. The Court, therefore, referred to the second part of the proviso which provides that such application can be made within six months

¶194

31

¶195

2025:HHC:19095

¶196

from the date of the Collector’s award. In the context of the scheme of Section 18 of the Act, the Court held that the award by the Land Acquisition Officer is an offer of market price by the State for purchase of the property. Hence, for the said offer, knowledge, actual or constructive, of the party affected by the award was an essential requirement of fair play and natural justice. Therefore, the second part of the proviso must mean the date when either the award was communicated to the party or was known by him either actually or constructively.

¶197

12. The aforesaid reasoning would not be applicable for interpretation of Section 28-A because there is no question of issuing notice to such an applicant as he is not a party to the reference proceeding before the court. The award passed by the court cannot be termed as an offer for market price for purchase of the land. There is no duty cast upon the court to issue notice to the landowners who have not initiated proceedings for enhancement of compensation by filing reference applications;

¶198

32

¶199

2025:HHC:19095

¶200

maybe, that their lands are acquired by a common notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. As against this, under Section 18 it is the duty of the Collector to issue notice either under Section 12(2) of the Act at the time of passing of the award or in any case the date to be pronounced before passing of the award and if this is not done then the period prescribed for filing application under Section 18 is six months from the date of the Collector’s award.”

¶201

15. In view of above, there is no occasion for us to consider the judgments cited at the bar on behalf of the appellants in support of its case. More so, the said judgments have been delivered by this Court while dealing with the applications under Section 18 of the Act. If there are directly applicable precedents on the issue, the same have to be followed rather than to search for a new interpretation unless it is established that the earlier judgments require reconsideration. The suggestion of reconsideration has specifically been rejected by this Court in Marri Venkaiah (supra).

¶202

16. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation

¶203

33

¶204

2025:HHC:19095

¶205

may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim “dura lex sed lex” which means “the law is hard but it is the law”, stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, “inconvenience is not” a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute. “A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation.””

¶206

Therefore, in the light of above discussion and the

¶207

law laid on by Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the orders dated 28.12.2017, passed by the Collector, in terms whereof the Collector entertained time barred applications of the private respondents filed under Section 28-A of the Act are per se bad in law and a nullity and the same are accordingly quashed and set aside.

¶208

Before parting, this Court would like to refer to the

¶209

34

¶210

2025:HHC:19095

¶211

judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents. In Shahid and others Vs. District Collector, Kollam and others, AIR 1997, Kerala 216, Hon’ble High Court of Kerala held that if a person applies under Section 28 A of the Land Acquisition Act within 3 months from the date of Award, then such an application cannot be rejected on the ground that the application was not accompanied by a certified copy of the Award as the certified copy can subsequently also be placed on record and the applicant who are producing such certified copy will get the benefit of the time spent for obtaining the certified copy thereof. This Court is of the considered view that this judgment is of no assistance to the present private respondents for the reason that it is not their case that they had applied under Section 28-A of the Act within the period of limitation. Because they applied beyond the period of limitation, therefore, the time spent by them in obtaining the certified copies which were applied by the petitioner herein, after the period of limitation had expired, would not give them any benefit as far as the calculation of limitation is concerned.

¶212

As far as the judgment of this Court in CWP No.

¶213

35

¶214

2025:HHC:19095

¶215

2207 of 2017, Sant Ram and others Vs. NTPC and another, along-with connected matters, decided on 28.05.2019, is concerned, therein the Hon’ble Division Bench was not seized of the issue as to whether the Collector was having any authority of entertaining an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act filed beyond the period of limitation or not. Therefore also, this judgment is of no assistance to the respondents, more so, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that has been relied upon by me in the above part of the judgment.

¶216

As far as the issue raised by the learned counsel for the private respondents that the petitioners have approached this Court against the order passed by the Collector at a belated stage, their contention is liable to be rejected for the reason that immediately after the order was announced by the Collector, the petitioners were bona-fidely pursuing their remedy by way of References under Section 28-A (3) of the Act, which were subsequently rejected as not maintainable by the Court concerned only in the year 2023.

¶217

In the light of the above observations, these writ

¶218

36

¶219

2025:HHC:19095

¶220

petitions are allowed, to the extent that the order dated 28.12.2017, passed by learned Land Acquisition Collector is quashed and set aside. As far as the order passed by learned Additional District Judge is concerned, the observations made therein by the learned Additional District Judge cannot be held to be bad for the reason that invocation of the provisions of Sub-Section (3) of Section 28-A of the Act, by the present petitioners, was indeed bad in law, as they could not have invoked the provisions of this Sub-Section as they happen to be the interested party for whose benefit the acquisition proceedings were undertaken.

¶221

Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed, in

¶222

above-said terms. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶223

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶224

June 19, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)

NTPC Ltd. v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

NTPC Ltd. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Veenas Ritansh Deshta Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Kapil Verma Vs Raj Kumar Thakur

Ritik Thakur Vs State of Hp and Others

NTPC Limited Vs State of Hp and Ors.

NTPC Limited Vs State of Hp and Ors.

NTPC Ltd. Vs State of Hp and Others