1 ( 2025:HHC:19235 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No.218 of 2025 Decided on: 02.06.2025 HPPCL & ors. ...Appellants Versus Raj Kumari & ors. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants : Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G with Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy A.G, for respondent No.4. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice(Oral) The present appeal filed by the appellants- respondents, arises out of the order passed by learned 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Single Judge in CWP No.2793 of 2024 on 17.03.2025, whereby writ petition filed by the petitioners was allowed. 2. The learned Single Judge directed the present appellants to pay the enhanced compensation in terms of the assurance (Annexure P-1) within a period of three months and in case the needful is not done within three months, interest at the rate of 6% would also flow from the date of filing of the petition. Respondents No.2 and 3 were also saddled with costs of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the petitioners. 3. The reason which weighed the learned Single Judge is that the land measuring 191 bighas was sold for an amount of Rs.1,47,56,250/- vide sale deed No.266 dated 24.11.2009 with the condition that in case the Land Acquisition Collector acquires land and if the rates are enhanced, the respondents shall pay the same enhanced rates to the petitioners for the land in issue. 4. Apparently the similarly situated land was acquired for the construction of the Dam by resorting to the principle of ‘eminent domain’ and proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were initiated and as many as three villages, namely, Siun, Deed Bagar and Lana 3 Machher, District Sirmaur, H.P. as such were affected including village Siun, with which we are concerned. The Collector Land Acquisition passed Awards No.658 dated 23.8.2012, 653 dated 6.8.2012, 654 dated 6.8.2012 and 645 dated 6.8.2012 determining the value of land classification wise, which was enhanced by the Reference Court from Rs. 60,500/- to Rs.1,00,000/- per bigha. 5. The matter was further carried to this Court by the land owners of the three villages, which was decided by disposing of a bunch of cases, lead case being RFA No.171 of 2016 preferred by the Corporation against Kamal Dev and others and also the other land owners had filed the appeal for enhancement which was registered as RFA No.335 of 2018 titled as Kamal Dev Vs Principal Secretary (Power) & ors. The learned Single Judge modified the order of the Reference Court on 29.12.2019 by giving Rs.7 lacs per bigha by dismissing the appeals of the Corporation. Apparently, the land owner had been agitating for the enhancement of the compensation in view of the fact that negotiated rates had been settled with the condition to get the benefit of an enhancement also. The 4 requisite undertaking given by the General Manager of the Renuka Dam Project is as under:- “ASSURANCE FOR NEGOTIATED RATES FOR LAND ACQUISITION IN RENUKA HEP. HPPCL has offered rates for land to be adjusted through negotiations vide its orders No.HPPCL/MD/Rev-1/08-1696 dated 6.12.2008. HPPCL agrees that in case the negotiated rates for land being acquired for dam and reservoir area (sub mergence area) are enhances the same rates will be paid to Shri Jagdish Singh s/o Sh. Baisakhi Ram R/o Village Mohal, Tehsil Dehra, Distt. Kangra, HP for his land measuring 191-0 Bigha comprised in Kh. No.104/1-372-1/4-374 measuring 185-5 Bigha and ½ share of Khasra No.3 i.e. 5-15 Bigha situate in Village Siun, Sub Tehsil Nohra, Distt. Sirmaur. This undertaking is being given to ensure that those persons who come forward for sale of land voluntarily are not disadvantaged. Sd/- Sd/- Naib Tehsildar For and on behalf of RCC HPPCL HPPCL Dadahu General Manger Renukaji Dam Project HPPCL Dadhu-171022” 6. Resultantly, the land owner had initially filed the application for enhanced awarded rate in the year 2016, which was rejected by the Corporation on 12.9.2016 (Annexure P-3) on the ground that the matters of enhancement of awarded rates are still under appeal. At 5 no stage, the Corporation as such had objected to the rights of the ownership of original land owner. 7. Apparently, when the aforesaid appeals were decided, an application was again sent to the Corporation for the release of enhanced compensation. The Corporation again deflected the issue by sending communication dated 28.10.2020 (Annexure P-7) that the matter of enhanced rate of compensation is sub judice before the Apex Court. No such stand at any point of time was taken regarding the fact that ownership of Jagdish Singh the original land owner suffered from any dis-ability. 8. Similarly situated persons also entered into as such negotiations vide sale deed dated 24.9.2009 for the construction of Renuka Dam Project, however, one of the land owners approached this Court by filing CWP No.2646 of 2015 titled as Sat Dev Singh Vs State of H.P. & ors., which was allowed on 30.07.2019. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by directing the respondents to pay the enhanced amount of compensation alongwith upto date interest as per Award No.658 dated 23.8.2012 and supplementary Award dated 6.3.2013. The respondents were also directed to pay the statutory 6 benefits in terms of the Apex Court judgment in Sunder Singh Vs Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 211 and Cost of Rs.1 lac was also imposed. 9. The matter was further taken in appeal by the Corporation by filing LPA No.64 of 2019, which was dismissed on 2.1.2020. However, the Court quashed the direction issued in the impugned judgment in respect of imposition of cost of Rs.1 lac upon the appellants as well as the direction in respect of holding inquiry against the erring officials to be conducted by the Chief Secretary- cum-Chairman, HPPCL for recovery of cost from them. 10. The Corporation thus failed to get any relief apart from the fact that cost of Rs.1 lac was set aside and the direction in respect of the holding the inquiry. Against the LPA No.64 of 2019, SLP filed by the Corporation was also dismissed on 14.10.2022. 11. We are now informed that the amount due to Sat Dev Singh was paid to him as per the orders passed in Execution Petition No.440 of 2024 dated 9.8.2024. Similarly in RFA No.171 of 2016, which was decided with bunch of cases, learned Single Judge on 5.4.2023 noticed while deciding the application for release of amount of 7 compensation that no notice had been received from the Apex Court or any other authority and judgment dated 9.12.2019 has attained finality. Thus in spite of settled principle as such in the matters that in similar circumstances same compensation is to be paid to the land owners now the issue has been raked up by the Corporation that ownership of the land as such in the hands of Jagdish Singh was beyond the permissible limit of holding of the land. 12. We are of the considered opinion that having purchased the land by negotiating the land owners and apparently at a very low rates in comparison, the Corporation is now bound by its undertaking and cannot as such try to wriggle out by seeking to pick holes in the status of the ownership of the original land owners when the legal heirs are only seeking their due shares. The argument that inquiry as such is now pending is only liable to be rejected keeping in view the fact that at no point of time from the year 2009 onwards, the Corporation had objected to the ownership as such and continued try to deflect the issue of payment on account of pendency of the litigation in the Regular First Appeal and the SLP. 8 Thus the Corporation as such at that point of time also would have to resort to the compulsory acquisition to purchase the land and to acquire the land for the public purpose and had no locus standi as such to object to the ownership of the land owner. Therefore, now at this stage when it is being asked to pay the same amount of compensation as to the other land owners in view of Article 14 of Constitution and in view of the law settled by the Apex Court that all the land owners whose lands have been utilized for public purpose, are liable to be paid, the same amount of compensation, appellant cannot hide behind the shield of technicalities. 13. Same view as such was taken by the learned Single Judge when it burdened the Corporation with costs of Rs.1 lac while placing reliance upon the judgments in Dilbagh Rai Jerry Vs Union of India, AIR 1974 SC 130, Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner Vs Mohan Lal (2010) 1 SCC 512, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. and another Vs Mathias Oram and others (2010) 11 SCC 269, Gurgaon Gramin Bank Vs Khazani and another (2012) 8 SCC 781, Punjab State Power Corportion Ltd., Patiala and ors. Vs Atma Singh Grewal (2014) 13 SCC 9 666, Subrata Roy Sahara Vs Union of India and others (2014) 8 SCC 470, Rajendra Shankar Shukla and ors Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others (2015) 10 SCC 400, Bhusawal Municipal Council vs Nivrutti Ramchandra Phalak and ors. (2015) 14 SCC 327, National Textile Corporation vs Kunj Behari Lal (2011) 167 Comp Cas 29 (Delhi), Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. Vs General Electric Co. 1994 Supp (1) SCC 644, Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs Union of India and ors. (2011) 8 SCC 161. 14. Resultantly, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the Single Judge does not as such suffer from any infirmity, whereby it has been noticed that the Corporation is as such trying to wriggle out from the undertaking is an afterthought to deprive the land owners of the legitimate rights for which we uphold the costs of Rs.50,000/-. Counsel for the respondents-land owners has been gracious enough to submit that he would not press the costs subject to the condition that he will not be further burdened with the litigation before the Apex Court. 15. Resultantly, we partly allow the appeal only to this extent that the costs of Rs.50,000/- is not liable to be 10 recovered from the Corporation. However, the said modification is conditional that in case the Corporation still presses to further harass the land owners, it shall be liable to pay costs of Rs.2 lacs for trying to deviate from the undertaking, subject to further orders passed by the Apex Court, if any. 16. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice June 2, 2025 (Ranjan Sharma) (mamta) Judge