HPPCL & another vs. Devinder Singh and others CMP No. 8234 of 2019 in RFA No.406 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. 8234 of 2019 The present application has been filed by the applicants/appellants seeking a refund of the excess amount deposited in Regular First Appeal (RFA) No. 406 of 2014, which was preferred against the award dated 09.05.2014 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge-1, Shimla in Land Reference No. 61-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 under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The acquired land included Khasra Nos. 298, 316, and 332 (measuring 0-28-08 hectares, classified as Kiar Awal [Irrigated]) and Khasra Nos. 299, 300, 352, 353, and 354 (measuring 0-30-75 hectares, classified as Banjar Kadim [Uncultivated]), in which the respondents held full ownership shares. 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, disbursing Rs. 48,41,023/- 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. 406 of 2014 and deposited Rs. 5,99,60,406/- with the Registry of this Court on 21.02.2015. 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. The appellants initially filed CMP No. 8234 of 2019 for a refund of the excess amount deposited, 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 by filing a Supplementary Affidavit along with revised calculations (Annexure A-1), seeking a refund of Rs. 1,48,03,456/-. The calculations were bifurcated into two parts: Part-I computed compensation as per the LAC’s award, assessing the total value at Rs. 49,61,357/- (including statutory benefits), with the respondents’ entitlement being Rs. 48,41,023/- (already disbursed) and a balance of Rs. 1,20,334/- remaining payable. Part-II recalculated compensation based on this Court’s judgment, fixing a uniform rate of Rs. 2,700/- per centiare (totalling Rs. 1,58,84,100/- for 5,883 centiares). After deducting the LAC’s assessed value (Rs. 28,00,443/-) and adding statutory benefits, the total enhanced compensation was worked out to Rs. 4,50,36,617/-, leaving an excess of Rs. 1,49,23,789/- from the deposited Rs. 5,99,60,406/-. Cumulatively, the applicants claimed a refund of Rs. 1,48,03,456/- (Rs. 1,49,23,789/- minus Rs. 1,20,334/-). The respondents contested these calculations in their reply affidavit dated 30.09.2022, asserting that the appellants’ deduction of the LAC’s award value from the enhanced rate (Rs. 2,700/-) was erroneous and contrary to the Committee’s report (which assessed the adjusted amount at Rs. 7,32,858/-). They argued that the appellants’ methodology effectively reduced their entitlement below the judicially mandated rate and sought the release of Rs. 2,16,77,067/- as per their revised computation (Annexure R-A). A reply to this in form of a rejoinder affidavit was filed on 30.12.2022 by the applicants. In view of the persisting dispute, this Court referred the matter to the Registrar (Judicial) for examination vide order dated 03.12.2024. The Registrar’s report dated 10.12.2024 upheld the appellants’ calculations, noting that the respondents’ denial of having received Rs. 48,41,023/- was contradicted by their own admissions in CMP No. 14588 of 2020 and the LAC’s official records. The Registrar found that the appellants’ methodology, deducting the initially awarded amount (Rs. 28,00,443/-) from the enhanced compensation (Rs. 1,58,84,100/-) was in conformity with the Supreme Court’s judgments in Prem Nath Kapur1996 (2) SCC, 71 and Gurpreet Singh2006 (8) SCC, 457, which mandate such adjustments to prevent double payment. The respondents’ approach, which omitted this deduction while computing enhanced compensation under Sections 23(1A), 23(2), and 34 of the Act, was held to artificially inflate their entitlement. I have carefully examined the supplementary affidavit filed by the applicants, the reply thereto submitted by the respondents, and the detailed report of the Registrar (Judicial). The respondents' inconsistent position regarding their receipt of ₹48,41,023/- cannot be sustained, as it stands contradicted by their own previous admissions made in CMP No. 14588 of 2020 as well as the official records of the Land Acquisition Collector, which provide conclusive documentary proof that this amount was indeed disbursed to them on 22.08.2007. The applicants' methodology of deducting the initially awarded compensation amount (₹28,00,443/-) from the enhanced compensation (₹1,58,84,100/-, as fixed by this Court at ₹2,700/- per centiare) to be legally sound and fully consistent with the binding precedents established by the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 457. These landmark judgments unequivocally mandate the adjustment of previously paid amounts to prevent any duplication of payment, thereby ensuring that claimants do not receive compensation twice for the same acquisition. This principle forms the bedrock of equitable compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The respondents' proposed calculation method, which conspicuously omits to deduct the initially awarded amount while computing enhanced compensation under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 34 of the Act, has been rightly identified by the Registrar as resulting in an impermissible inflation of their entitlement. This approach runs contrary to both statutory provisions and established judicial precedents. The Registrar has correctly determined that the total compensation payable to the respondents for their full share in the acquired lands, after making all proper deductions and adjustments, amounts to ₹4,50,36,617/- Since, the applicants had deposited ₹5,99,60,406/- with the Registry, they are legally entitled to a refund of ₹1,49,23,789/- Additionally, the records reveal that the respondents had received ₹1,20,334/- in excess of their original entitlement under the Collector's award. When combined, these figures result in a total refundable amount of ₹1,48,03,456/- to which the applicants are rightfully entitled. The Registrar's exhaustive analysis has confirmed that the applicants' calculations, as set forth in Annexure A-1, are mathematically precise and in full compliance with governing legal principles. The respondents' reliance on their revised calculations (Annexure R-A) is fundamentally flawed as it disregards the core 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, constitutes nothing short of an impermissible double recovery. This approach has been consistently rejected by courts as it would lead to unjust enrichment at the expense of the acquiring body. In light of these findings, the Court affirms the Registrar's findings and directs the release of ₹1,48,03,456/- 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