HPPCL & another vs. Devinder Singh and others CMP No. 8235 of 2019 in RFA No.405 of 2025 05.08.2025 Present: Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate, for the applicants-appellants. Mr. G.D. Verma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Digvijay Singh Bisht, Advocate, for the non- applicants/objectors/claimants. CMP No. 8235 of 2019 The present application has been filed by the applicants/appellants seeking refund of the excess amount deposited in Regular First Appeal (RFA) No. 405 of 2014, which was preferred before the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh against the award dated 09.05.2014 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge-1, Shimla in Land Reference No. 60-S/4 of 2013/08. The matter pertains to the acquisition of land situated at Village Hatkoti, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla (H.P.) for the Sawra Kuddu Hydro Electric Project, notified vide Notification No. Vidyut Chh (5)/16/2005 dated 06.08.2005 under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The acquisition process was completed with the publication of the notification in the Official Gazette on 06.08.2005 and the public notice issued by the Tehsildar, Jubbal on 26.12.2005. The acquired land included Khasra No. 333 (measuring 485 sq. meters, classified as irrigated land) and Khasra No. 334 (measuring 160 sq. meters, classified as uncultivable riverbed), in which the respondents held an undivided ½ share. The Land Acquisition Collector, vide Award No. 585 dated 18.07.2007, fixed compensation at different rates based on land classification, leading to a total disbursement of Rs. 4,40,860/- to the respondents on 22.08.2007. Dissatisfied with the award, the respondents sought a reference, resulting in the Reference Court enhancing the compensation to a uniform rate of Rs. 3,038/- per centiare vide its award dated 09.05.2014. Challenging this enhancement, the appellants filed RFA No. 405 of 2014 and deposited Rs. 31,85,918/- with the Registry of this Hon'ble Court on 21.02.2015. The appeal was partly allowed vide judgment dated 12.10.2018, whereby this Hon'ble Court reduced the compensation to Rs. 2,700/- per centiare while maintaining other statutory benefits. Consequently, the appellants became entitled to a refund of the excess amount deposited. They initially filed CMP No. 8235 of 2019 for this purpose, upon which this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 18.09.2019, directed them to submit revised calculations with 26.12.2005 as the starting date for interest computation. The appellants complied with this direction by filing a Supplementary Affidavit along with revised calculations (Annexure A-1), seeking appropriate orders for the refund of the differential amount. The applicants/appellants have submitted detailed calculations (Annexure A-1) in two parts: Part-I computed compensation as per the Collector’s Award No. 585 dated 18.07.2007, assessing the irrigated land (Khasra No. 333: 485 centiares) at Rs. 821/- per centiare (totalling Rs. 3,98,185/-) and uncultivated land (Khasra No. 334: 160 centiares) at Rs. 161/- per centiare (totalling Rs. 25,760/-), with statutory additions (solatium, interest under Sections 23(1A), 23(2), and 34), arriving at Rs. 7,51,075/- for the entire land. After deducting the ½ share (Rs. 3,75,537/-) of the respondents (co-owners) and the excess payment of Rs. 4,40,860/- already disbursed, a refundable amount of Rs. 65,323/- was determined. Part-II recalculated compensation based on this Court’s judgment dated 12.10.2018, fixing a uniform rate of Rs. 2,700/- per centiare (totalling Rs. 17,41,500/- for 645 centiares). After deducting the Collector’s assessed value (Rs. 4,23,945/-) and adding statutory benefits, the total enhanced compensation was worked out to Rs. 45,35,293/-, with the respondents’ ½ share being Rs. 22,67,647/-. Against the deposited Rs. 31,85,918/-, an excess of Rs. 9,18,271/- was identified. Cumulatively, the applicants claimed a refund of Rs. 9,83,594/- (Rs. 65,323/- + Rs. 9,18,271/-). The dispute necessitated verification by the Registrar (Judicial) to reconcile these computations with the respondents’ objections. A reply to this was filed by the non- applicants on 30th September, 2022 wherein they contested the applicant- Corporation's claim regarding the deduction of Rs. 4,40,860/-, asserting that the correct adjusted amount was Rs. 7,32,858/- as determined by a duly constituted Committee of revenue officials. They argued that the Corporation's revised calculations (Annexure A-1) erroneously deducted the Collector’s award value (Rs. 821/- and Rs. 161/- per centiare) from the High Court’s enhanced rate (Rs. 2,700/- per centiare), effectively reducing compensation below the judicially mandated rate. They emphasized that the High Court’s judgment entitled them to Rs. 2,700/- per centiare irrespective of land classification, along with statutory benefits under Sections 23(1A), 23(2), and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The respondents further alleged that the Corporation’s methodology contradicts the Committee’s accepted calculations and seeks unjust double deduction of the initial payment. They demanded the balance of Rs. 1,11,770/- (as per Annexure R-A) with interest, and the release of the withheld share (Rs. 7,32,858/-) of other beneficiaries. Additionally, they provided a revised computation (Annexure R-B) claiming a total entitlement of Rs. 56,63,597/-, with Rs. 13,50,616/- (including excess deposit) payable to them, and criticize the Corporation for protracting litigation unjustly. The Applicants also filed a rejoinder affidavit as reply to the same on 30th December 2022. In view of the persisting dispute between the parties regarding the computation of compensation amounts, this Court, by its order dated 03.12.2024, considered it appropriate to refer the matter to the Registrar (Judicial) for detailed examination and verification of the rival contentions. The Registrar (Judicial) filed his report on 10.12.2024 wherein he carefully examined the rival contentions and supporting documents. The respondents' denial of having received Rs. 4,40,860/- was contradicted by their own admissions in previous proceedings (CMP No. 14583 of 2020) and the official records of the Land Acquisition Collector, which conclusively established the disbursement of this amount on 22.08.2007. The applicants' calculation methodology, which deducted the initially awarded amount (Rs. 4,23,945/-) from the enhanced compensation (Rs. 17,41,500/- fixed by this Court at Rs. 2,700/- per centiare), was found to be in conformity with binding precedents of the Supreme Court in Prem Nath Kapur and Gurpreet Singh cases. These judgments mandated adjustment of previously paid amounts to prevent double payment of compensation. The Registrar noted that the respondents' calculation method, which failed to deduct the initially awarded amount while computing enhanced compensation under Section 23(1A), 23(2) and 34 of the Act, resulted in an incorrect inflation of their entitlement. The total compensation payable to the respondents for their half share was correctly computed at Rs. 22,67,647/- after proper deductions. Since the applicants had deposited Rs. 31,85,918/- with the Registry, they were entitled to a refund of Rs. 9,18,271/-. Additionally, the respondents had received Rs. 65,323/- in excess of their original entitlement under the Collector's award, making the total refundable amount Rs. 9,83,594/-. The Registrar found the applicants' calculations (Annexure A-1) to be accurate and in compliance with legal principles Having carefully considered the supplementary affidavit filed by the applicants, the reply submitted by the respondents, and the detailed report of the Registrar (Judicial), this Court finds no reason to deviate from the conclusions drawn in the Registrar's report. The respondents' contradictory stance regarding the receipt of Rs. 4,40,860/- was rightly discredited in light of their prior admissions in CMP No. 14583 of 2020 and the Land Acquisition Collector's official records, which unequivocally confirm the disbursement of this amount on 22.08.2007. The applicants' methodology of deducting the initially awarded compensation (Rs. 4,23,945/-) from the enhanced valuation (Rs. 17,41,500/-) aligns with the statutory scheme and judicial precedents, particularly the principle laid down in Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 457, wherein it was held that interest is payable only on the excess amount of compensation awarded by the reference court and that there is no scope for the re-opening of the appropriation already made pursuant to the award. This squarely supports the applicants' approach of adjusting the previously paid amounts to avoid duplication. The respondents' insistence on computing statutory benefits without deducting the initial award not only contravenes the mandate of Gurpreet Singh but also artificially inflates their entitlement. As observed in the report, the total enhanced compensation for their half share was correctly recalculated at Rs. 22,67,647/-, leaving a refundable surplus of Rs. 9,18,271/- from the deposited Rs. 31,85,918/-. The additional excess of Rs. 65,323/- (paid under the Collector's award) further justifies the applicants' claim for a total refund of Rs. 9,83,594/-. The Registrar's meticulous analysis, which harmonizes the calculations with Sections 23(1A), 23(2), and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is upheld in its entirety. The respondents' reliance on their revised calculations (Annexure R-A) is untenable, as it disregards the foundational principle reiterated in Gurpreet Singh(Supra) that "the award of interest is confined to the excess compensation awarded." Their attempt to claim solatium and interest on the entirety of the enhanced amount, without accounting for prior payments, amounts to an impermissible double recovery. Consequently, the Court affirms the Registrar's findings and directs the release of Rs. 9,83,594/- to the applicants, along with any accrued interest, in terms of the corrected calculations (Annexure A-1). The respondents' objections are accordingly dismissed (Bipin C. Negi) Judge 5th August, 2025 tarun