Yagya Dev and Others Vs National Hydro-Electric Power Corporation Ltd. and Others

They are with the grievance that damage has been caused to their house situated over Khasra No.1996/2 at Village Jiwa, Post Office Raila, Sub-Tehsil Sainj, District Kullu on account of works carried out by respondent No.1, therefore,

¶18

they are entitled for compensation qua the damages caused

¶19

in terms of the evaluation report (Annexure P-8).

¶20

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶21

2

¶22

2026:HHC:26089

¶23

2. The case set up by the petitioners is that:-

¶24

2(i). On 23.11.2021, they moved an application to

¶25

the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, requesting him to assess the loss caused to their house with the assertions that due to blasting carried out by respondent No.1, heavy loss had been caused to their building, which was required to be assessed and compensation was to be paid to them.

¶26

2(ii). The application was processed by the District Administration. The officials of the District Administration inspected the spot in presence of officials of respondent No.1 and reported that house was not habitable. The loss caused to the house was got assessed through the State Public Works Department. The assessment report in this regard has been placed on record at Annexure P-8. Petitioners claim this amount from respondent No.1 on the ground that it is due to the blasting works/actions of respondent No.1 towards construction of its hydro electric power project that damage was caused to their house.

¶27

3. Respondent No.1 has opposed the petition. Its defense is that blasting/construction work of Parvati Hydro Power Project-II was carried out and completed in the year 2010. During the year 2011, development of cracks in the houses of certain residents including that of the petitioners

¶28

3

¶29

2026:HHC:26089

¶30

was observed. State Public Works Department accordingly assessed the compensation payable to such villagers including the petitioners. Report in this regard was prepared on 21.10.2011 (Annexure R-1/1). In terms of Clause 2 of the report, compensation was decided to be paid to the petitioners on account of damage caused to their house. In all, an amount of Rs.82,80,855/- was determined towards compensation payable to different land owners including the petitioners. Rs.6,06,733/- as assessed were accordingly released to petitioner No.2, who is the owner of the house. Subsequent thereto also, four inspections were carried out by the Committee on 21.11.2011, 20.12.2011, 10.02.2012 and 24.05.2012. Joint inspections were also carried out on 18.03.2013, 30.08.2013, 09.09.2013 and 12.02.2014 as per the directions of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Banjar. In none of these inspections reports, house of the petitioners standing over Khasra No.1996 was reported to have suffered any damage on account of construction work carried out by respondent No.1.

¶31

In nutshell, the stand of respondent No.1 is that compensation for Khasra No.1996, over which house of the petitioners is standing, stands already paid to them in

¶32

4

¶33

2026:HHC:26089

¶34

terms of the report dated 21.10.2011. Any damage subsequently caused to petitioners’ house is not relatable to respondent No.1. The construction towards the project in question had been completed by respondent No.1 in the year 2010. Respondent No.1 disputes its liability to pay any compensation to the petitioners on account of damage allegedly caused to their house in the year 2021.

¶35

Respondents No.4 to 6-the District

¶36

Administration admits conducting of spot inspection of the house of the petitioners on 28.12.2021 by the officials of the Public Works Department in presence of authorized officer of respondent No.1 and other stakeholders. The house, being not habitable and having developed cracks, is also admitted, but does not admit the reason of cracks in the house of the petitioners as asserted by them in the writ petition. In their reply filed to the writ petition, respondents No.2 & 3-State Public Works Department admits joint inspection of the property in question on 28.12.2021, but denies its responsibility to compensate the petitioners on account of damages caused to their house. As per their reply, liability, if any, has to be borne by respondent No.1.

¶37

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support

¶38

of the prayer made in the writ petition, has relied upon

¶39

5

¶40

2026:HHC:26089

¶41

Shobha Ram Versus National Hydroelectric Power

¶42

Corporation Limited² , wherein directions were issued to the Deputy Commissioner to constitute a fresh Committee comprising of technical experts of respondent No.1 and experts of the State Geology Department, which was to visit the spot to ascertain as to whether any damage had been caused to the house/property of the petitioner therein on account of construction carried out by respondent No.1 in and around the area in question.

¶43

It is an admitted position that petitioner in Shobha Ram² was one of the house owners, whose houses had suffered damages on account of construction work carried out by respondent No.1 and was held entitled to a specific amount of compensation in terms of the report dated 30.10.2010 prepared by the State Public Works Department. He was not satisfied with the quantum of damages ascertained and had prayed for re-assessment of the damages in the aforesaid writ petition that was instituted in the year 2010 itself. The writ petition was decided on 30.12.2013 with following operative directions:-

¶44

“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

¶45

2 CWP No.7032 of 2010, decided on 30.12.2013

¶46

6

¶47

2026:HHC:26089

¶48

Commissioner, Kullu, to constitute a fresh Committee comprising of technical experts of respondent No.1Organization 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.”

¶49

The petitioners cannot derive any benefit out of

¶50

the aforesaid decision as they were satisfied with the assessment of the damages in terms of the report dated 21.10.2011. Immediate legal recourse was not taken by them for enhancement of compensation awarded in terms of the aforesaid report. Petitioners’ case is that their house suffered further damage during the year 2021 and attribute the damage to the blasting/construction work carried out by respondent No.1 in the year 2010. There is no material on record to establish this assertion of the petitioners. Connection between the damage caused to the house of the petitioners in the year 2021 with the construction work carried out by respondent No.1 towards the project upto the year 2010 is required to be established and proved by leading evidence in accordance with law. Respondent No.1 has denied any relation between the two. Merely because

¶51

7

¶52

2026:HHC:26089

¶53

petitioners’ house has been reported as not habitable in the year 2021 or the fact that damage caused to their house has been quantified by the State Public Works Department, is not sufficient to make respondent No.1 liable to indemnify this damage to the petitioners. There are factual disputes, which cannot be gone into in this writ petition, more so, 14 years after stopping of the construction work of the project by respondent No.1.

¶54

It will also be appropriate to take note of Krishan Versus Union of India and others³ . The grievance of the petitioners therein was that on account of tunneling work carried out by the respondents for development of four lane road, their properties had been directly & indirectly damaged and therefore, they should be compensated. After considering several precedents in the timeline, Hon’ble Division Bench held that the Writ Court may in appropriate case award compensation where the facts are not in dispute. In exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court should not interfere with the matters, which are in the realm of private laws. Where there is disputed question of fact requiring evidence to establish the same, then as a

¶55

3 CWP No.2983 of 2015, decided alongwith connected matters on 26.7.2016

¶56

8

¶57

2026:HHC:26089

¶58

matter of practice, the Court should not entertain such writ petition. It was held that the Court cannot appoint an expert committee to assess the damage, if any, caused to the properties of the petitioners. Such course would be totally impermissible as the Court cannot be used to collect

¶59

evidence. Portion relevant to the context is as under:-

¶60

“11. It would be evidently clear from the aforesaid exposition of law that the writ Court may in appropriate case award compensation where the facts are not in dispute; there is established negligence in the acts and omissions of the respondent authority/authorities on the face of record and there is a consistent deprivation of a fundamental right of the petitioner or his legal representative. That apart, the Court cannot appoint an expert committee to assess the damage if any caused to the properties of the petitioners as such course would be totally impermissible as the Court cannot be used to collect evidence in favour of the petitioners.

¶61

12. It would be noticed that the respondents have disputed all the allegations as set out by the petitioners and therefore, in such circumstances, it is not safe or even prudent for this Court to rely upon any of the material placed on record, that too without affording either of the parties a chance of cross-examination.

¶62

13. Even otherwise, it is more than settled that the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not interfere with the matters, which are in the realm of private laws and it can otherwise be taken to be well settled that where there is disputed question of fact, which require evidence before the same can be established, then as a matter of practice, the Court would not entertain such writ petition.

¶63

14. It is equally settled law that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to the litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Equally, the existence of alternative remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court to issue writ, but ordinarily that

¶64

9

¶65

2026:HHC:26089

¶66

would be a good ground for refusing to exercise the discretion under Article 226.

¶67

15. These petitions involve seriously disputed questions of fact and even otherwise the rival claims of the parties are such, which can only be investigated and determined on the basis of evidence, which may be led by the parties in a properly instituted civil suit rather than by a court exercising prerogative of issuing writs.

¶68

16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that all these writ petitions are not maintainable, as the proper remedy for the petitioners is to approach the civil court for redressal of their grievances. However, we make it clear that in the event of the petitioner(s) approaching the civil Court within a period of thirty days from the receipt of this judgment, not only shall the petitioner(s) be entitled to benefit of Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, but even the period of limitation spent in pursuing these litigations shall be excluded. We further make it clear that in the event the aforesaid suit being filed within the time frame as granted by this Court, the Court where such suit(s) are instituted shall decide the same as expeditiously as possible and in no event later than 31^st March, 2017.”

¶69

5. The ratio of the aforesaid decision applies to the

¶70

instant case as well. Co-relation between the damage caused to the house of the petitioners in the year 2021 to the construction/blasting work carried out by respondent No.1 for Parvati Hydro-Electric Power Project upto the year 2010 is not established on record. It is disputed by contesting respondent No.1. In the given facts, the relief claimed by the petitioners cannot be allowed to them in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s),

¶71

10

¶72

2026:HHC:26089

¶73

if any. It is for the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy as

¶74

available to them in accordance with law for the redressal of

¶75

their grievances.

¶76

July 02, 2026 Mukesh