HPPCL & another vs. Devinder Singh and others CMP No. 8236 of 2015 in RFA No.65 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. 8236 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. 65 of 2015, which was preferred against the award dated 09.05.2014 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge-1, Shimla in Land Reference No. 59-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, which was notified under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The acquired land comprised Khasra No. 337 measuring 0-11-01 hectares (1101 square meters) classified as Kiar Awal (Irrigated) and Khasra No. 339 measuring 0-00-32 hectares (32 square meters) classified as Banjar Kadeem (Uncultivated), in which the respondents held rights as non- occupancy tenants. The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC), vide Award No. 585 dated 18.07.2007, fixed compensation at Rs. 821/- per centiare for irrigated land and Rs. 161/- per centiare for uncultivated land. The total compensation awarded was Rs. 15,71,481/-, which was disbursed to the respondents on 22.08.2007. Being dissatisfied with the award, the respondents sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act, which resulted 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. 65 of 2015 before this Hon'ble Court and deposited Rs. 1,10,79,944/- with the Registry on 20.04.2015. The appeal was partly allowed vide judgment dated 12.10.2018, whereby this Court reduced the compensation to Rs. 2,700/- per centiare while maintaining other statutory benefits under the Act. Consequently, the appellants became entitled to a refund of the excess amount deposited. They initially filed CMP No. 8236 of 2019 for this purpose, upon which this 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), which were prepared in two parts. Part-I computed compensation as per the Collector's Award No. 585 dated 18.07.2007, assessing the value of the land at Rs. 9,09,073/- (Rs. 9,03,921/- for irrigated land and Rs. 5,152/- for uncultivated land) with statutory additions including solatium, interest under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 34 of the Act, arriving at a total compensation of Rs. 16,10,544/-. Since the respondents were non-occupancy tenants entitled to 75% share, their entitlement was worked out to Rs. 12,07,908/-. However, they had received Rs. 15,71,481/- (100% of the award amount), resulting in an excess payment of Rs. 3,63,573/- refundable to the appellants. 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. 30,59,100/- for 1133 square meters). After deducting the Collector's assessed value (Rs. 9,09,073/-) and adding statutory benefits, the total enhanced compensation was worked out to Rs. 74,77,057/-, with the respondents' 75% share being Rs. 56,07,792/-. Against the deposited Rs. 1,10,79,944/-, an excess of Rs. 54,72,152/- was identified. Cumulatively, the applicants claimed a refund of Rs. 58,35,725/- (Rs. 3,63,573/- + Rs. 54,72,152/-). The respondents contested these calculations in their reply dated 30.09.2022, asserting that the appellants' deduction of the Collector's award value from the enhanced rate (Rs. 2,700/-) was erroneous. They relied on a committee’s report which had determined the adjusted amount as Rs. 7,32,858/- and argued that this methodology effectively reduced their entitlement below the judicially mandated rate. The respondents maintained that they were entitled to compensation at Rs. 2,700/- per centiare irrespective of land classification, along with full statutory benefits under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 34 of the Act. They submitted revised computations (Annexure R-A) claiming a total entitlement of Rs. 99,48,613/- and demanded payment of Rs. 44,52,121/- after adjusting the 50% amount already withdrawn. In view of the persisting dispute regarding the computation of compensation amounts, this Court, by order dated 03.12.2024, referred the matter to the Registrar (Judicial) for detailed examination and verification of the rival contentions. The Registrar (Judicial), in his report dated 10.12.2024, carefully analysed the documents and submissions before concluding that the respondents' denial of having received ₹15,71,481/- was contradicted by their own admissions in CMP No. 14593 of 2020 and the official records of the Land Acquisition Collector. The report affirmed that the appellants' approach of deducting the initially awarded amount (₹9,09,073/-) from the enhanced compensation (₹30,59,100/-) properly followed the Supreme Court's rulings in Prem Nath Kapur (1996) 2 SCC 71 and Gurpreet Singh (2006) 8 SCC 457, which mandate such adjustments to prevent double payment. The Registrar further determined that the respondents' status as non-occupancy tenants limited their entitlement to 75% of the compensation, as established in Inder Prasad (1994) 5 SCC 239 and Harinder Singh Barar (1994) 4 SCC 523, noting they had received ₹3,63,573/- in excess of their rightful 75% share (₹12,07,908/- out of ₹16,10,544/-). Having deposited ₹1,10,79,944/- with the Registry, the appellants were found entitled to a refund of ₹54,72,152/- along with the excess ₹3,63,573/-, totalling ₹58,35,725/-. The Registrar ultimately concluded that the appellants' calculations in Annexure A-1 were both accurate and legally compliant. Having carefully considered the supplementary affidavit filed by the applicants, the reply submitted by the respondents, and the detailed report of the Registrar (Judicial), I find no reason to deviate from the Registrar's conclusions. The respondents' contradictory stance regarding receipt of Rs. 15,71,481/- was rightly discredited in light of their prior admissions and the Land Acquisition Collector's official records. The tenant-status restriction to 75% compensation stands firmly established in cited precedents namely Inder Prasad (1994) 5 SCC 239 and Harinder Singh Barar (1994) 4 SCC 523. The appellants' methodology of deducting the initially awarded compensation from the enhanced valuation aligns with the statutory scheme and judicial precedents, particularlyGurpreet Singh2006 (8) SCC, 457, which held that interest is payable only on the excess compensation awarded by the reference court. The respondents' insistence on computing statutory benefits without deducting the initial award not only contravenes Gurpreet Singh but also artificially inflates their entitlement. Their reliance on Annexure R-A is untenable as it disregards the principle that interest is confined to excess compensation. The attempt to claim solatium and interest on the entirety of the enhanced amount amounts to impermissible double recovery. Consequently, the Court affirms the Registrar's findings and directs release of Rs. 58,35,725/- to the appellants along with accrued interest. The respondents' objections are dismissed and all pending applications stand disposed of. (Bipin C. Negi) Judge 5th August, 2025 tarun