1 2025:HHC:43025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA LPA No. 821 of 2025 Decided on: 09 th December , 2025 ____________________________________________________ __ Surya Narayan Bandh Visthapit Sangharsh Samiti, Neerath. ....Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents ________________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes For the appellant: Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3 and 6 to 8. Ms. Devyani Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocates, for respondents No. 4, 5 and 9. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner-society was dismissed by imposing 1,00,000/- cost. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion ₹ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2025:HHC:43025 that the challenge was to the meeting of the negotiation committee for purchase of private land and the execution of the sale deeds and the locus of the petitioner-society was doubted as the land owners were not before the Court, who have been mentioned to be members of the society. It was also noticed that there was affidavit of one Babu Ram, President of the society in support of the petitioner, was not one of the 500 land owners, whose land was purchased by way of sale deeds by respondent No.4-Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam (SJVN) Limited. 2. The locus standi of the society therefore was doubted and learned Single Judge came to conclusion that if the sale deeds were obtained by fraud played by respondent No. 4 the land owners could go to the appropriate Court, seeking a relief of declaration. The bald allegations made of arbitrariness, threats and allurements by the society on an affidavit sworn in by an individual, who is not even one of the land owners, who had allegedly been forced to enter into the sale deeds, was the reason that the learned Single Judge had come to the conclusion that the petition is nothing but abuse of the process of law. The fact that the sale deeds were results of coercion or were voluntarily executed by the land owners were held to be highly disputed questions which could not be gone into under 3 2025:HHC:43025 Article 226 of the Constitution of India and on that account the cost was imposed. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant sought to argue that the society was looking after the interests of the land owners and therefore, the action of the respondents in entering into private negotiation and executing sale deeds in their favour was at very low prices, and was liable to be interfered with. 4. We have gone through the paper book in detail. It is apparent that the dispute, as such was on account of the fact that the Hydro Project Luhri State-I HEP, of 210 MW, was being developed on the Satluj river and apparently land of villages Neerath, Bhadrash and Naula, which are situated alongside NH-05 in District Shimla, Tehsil Rampur, whereas, villages Neethar and Gadej which are situated across the river and fall in District Kullu and are only separated by Satluj River. Apparently in pursuance of the notification dated 17.11.2018 (Annexure P-8), land acquisition proceedings in large number of villages were initiated. Apparently the petitioner society is espousing the cause as per the counsel for the appellant of the land situated in village Bhadrash, Neerath and Charont. 5. The perusal of the report of negotiation committee 4 2025:HHC:43025 which had been constituted way back on 20.04.2019, which was headed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, would go on to show that on 07.12.2019 (Annexure P-18) report was prepared by the said official and sent to the Special Secretary (Power). Apparently, the land owners who were present had agreed after negotiations to ₹40,00,000/- per bigha for Badrash, 50,00,000/- per bigha for ₹ Nirath and for Charounta land was to be given on lease for 2,00,000/- per bigha. On 06.03.2020 the Additional Chief ₹ Secretary (MPP & Power) wrote to the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, for the acquisition of private land for the said 210 MW project, while noting the rates negotiated and the demanded rates and the average/circle rates and accepted the joint report and gave authorization to go ahead with the purchase/acquire the private land on negotiated rates with the condition that mandatory provisions of Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, be complied with. The relevant letter reads as under :- Subject:- Acquisition of private land for c/o Luhri HEP Stage-I (210 MW). Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter No. SML-REV-Land Acquisition (LHEP)/2018-418, dated 27th March, 2019, on the subject cited above and to say that vide Notifications No.: MPP- F(5)-11/2016, dated 20.04.2020, Negotiation Committees were constituted under the chairmanship SDM Kumarsain & SDM Rampur to negotiate the rates of land in village Charounta, Rewali & Naula under Kumarsain Sub-Division and village Badrash, 5 2025:HHC:43025 Nirath & Narola under Rampur Sub-Division of Distt. Shimla. The Negotiation Committees negotiated with the land owners of aforesaid areas and submitted Joint report vide letter No. RMP/Reader/2019-1813, dated 07.12.2019. As per Joint Report, negotiated rates are as under:- SN Name of Village Average/circle rates per bigha Demanded rates per bigha Negotiated rates per bigha/Remarks 1 Riwali 1,09,68,722-00 45 lakhs Excluded from acquisition/ negotiation process 2 Naula 15,71,683-00 - -do- 3 Narola 50,56,915-00 - -do- 4 Badrash 59,17,251-00 40 lakhs 40 lakhs 5 Nirath 1,05,73,862-00 60 lakhs 50 lakhs 6 Charounta 33,86,198-00 On lease basis Offer accepted The Joint Report of Negotiation Committees was examined/considered at Government level. Since the negotiated rates per bigha are acceptable to both the parties & seems appropriate, as such, the joint report is hereby accepted and SJVNL authorities are allowed/ authorised to go ahead to purchase/acquire the private land on negotiated rates with the condition that mandatory provisions of Rehabilitation & Resettlement as well as other provisions of "Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013" may also be complied with. 6. In pursuance of the same, sale deeds were also executed and the appellants have attached sale deed dated 06.06.2020, wherein a sum of 1,95,66,580/- (Rupees one crore ₹ ninety five lakh sixty six thousand five hundred eighty only) was paid to one Amitabh by way of cheque. Similar sale deed executed 6 2025:HHC:43025 in favor of one Satish Chand on 28.05.2020, would go on to show that he has received a sum of 2,51,80,760/- (Rupees two crore fifty ₹ one lakhs eighty thousand seven hundred sixty only), whereas Shammi vide sale deed executed on 03.03.2020 has received 1,34,00,948/- (Rupees one crore thirty four lac nine hundred forty ₹ eight only). 7. The petitioner society at no point of time from the year 2020 ever represented the cause of the land owners and filed the writ petition in the year 2024, challenging the said report of the committee. The specific response of respondent No. 4 is on the question of the delay and that the sale is of private land as per the recommendations. It has been mentioned that in the proceedings, neither the name of the members of the society have been mentioned nor their signatures have been appended and the petition has been filed after the sale deeds had already taken place and the land acquisition process of stage-I had also been completed. The locus standi and the authority to file the writ petition, thus was questioned. 8. It is not disputed that after the filing of the reply on 25.11.2024, the learned Single Judge also gave the option to petitioner to file the rejoinder on 06.12.2024, which order was 7 2025:HHC:43025 repeated on 08.03.2025. The arguments now raised that the State’s reply was not filed and therefore, the learned Single Judge should have held back his hand while deciding the petition is without any basis as the matter was adjourned on various dates on 08.05.2025 and 10.06.2025 and arguments were eventually heard on 21.07.2025, leading to judgment being pronounced on 31.07.2025. No rejoinder was filed to the averments/pleadings of the defence of respondent No. 4. 9. Reply filed by respondent No. 7, also would go on to show that a co-ordination committee was constituted to undertake the videography of the natural water sources, structure and assessment of the land. The negotiation committee had been formed after taking due approval from the Special Secretary (Power) for the purpose of expediting the land acquisition process and it is in such circumstances the land was utilized following the due process of law. The price was in consensus with the land owners who have never come forward, thus, the filing of the present petition has rightly been held to be without locus by a “Phantom” organization and in such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is well justified. 10. Another reason for us to dismiss the present appeal is 8 2025:HHC:43025 that it is settled principle that a person who has accepted the compensation, would be bound by the principles of approbate and reprobate as laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India and others vs. N. Murugesan and others (2022) 2 SCC 25 and therefore, they cannot now challenge the negotiation process arrived at on the basis of which they were beneficiary. Once they have opted to take amount as per the agreement and sale deeds have been entered into, they have lost their right to seek enhancement by accepting the compensation and their substantive cause of action has also vanished. They are precluded from maintaining any application or reference for enhancement of the amount. The law laid down in Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Ravindra Kumar (2022) 13 SCC 468, would stare at their faces. Thus, apparently, the society is espousing the cause of the persons who themselves do not have any right as such to challenge the negotiation process on the basis of its settlement to get compensation in one go and as noticed above, had received the amount in pursuance of the agreement and thereafter the sale deeds have been executed in their favour. 11. The Apex Court recently in The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Transport Department & others vs. P.R. Jaganathan and others etc. Civil Appeal of 2025 (arising out 9 2025:HHC:43025 of SLP (C) Ors. 12770-83 of 2020) decided on 19.11.2025 dealt with the similar proposition and came to the conclusion that since there was concluded contract voluntary entered into, the fall back on the statutory provisions cannot be permitted since the settlement was done by negotiations which ensured the timely payment and avoided the circuitous route for passing of the Award, Reference and Appeal. It was held that concluded contract as such would estop the parties who were claiming interest as such which had been granted by the High Court of Chennai though it had upheld the negotiation agreements. Resultantly, the appeal was allowed and the interest element which had been granted under Section 12 of The Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, was set aside on the ground that the party to the contract cannot be permitted to have recourse to two different modes and resile from the terms of the agreement and the said settlement cannot be reopened as there was no suppression of fact or any element of fraud. Thus, it is apparent that it is vested interest litigation initiated for the said set of land owners, who themselves were not in a position to plead their case on the principle of acquiescence. 12. It is a known fact that the Court times are sometimes taken up by the said kind of organizations, who without any locus 10 2025:HHC:43025 standi file such petitions only for vested interests. Even otherwise, the nature of the petition would go on to show that even it was in the form of a Public Interest Litigation. On account of the fact that there are specific rules drawn by this Court, the petitioner might have to be required to deposit a certain amount to show its bonafide and it is in such circumstances the Public Interest Litigation was not preferred, while filing the writ petition after a long delay. Thus we are of the considered opinion that the manner in which the vested interest litigation has been initiated apart from which the order does not suffer from any illegality to interfere. 13. Resultantly, we find no merit in the present appeal and same is accordingly dismissed. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 09 th December , 2025 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge