( 2026:HHC:36040-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos. 1845 of 2023 & 2699 of 2024 Decided on: 25.08.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No. 1845 of 2023 M/s J.P. Power Grid Ltd. and Anr. …..Petitioners Versus Surender Singh ....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No. 2699 of 2024 Surinder Singh …..Petitioner Versus M/s J.P. Power Grid Ltd. and Anr. ....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Narender Sharma & Ms. Minakshi Sharma, Advocates, for the petitioner in CWP No.1845 of 2023 and for the respondents in CWP No. 2699 of 2024. For the Respondents: Mr. B.M.Chauhan, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Kamakshi Tarlokta & Mr. Amit Himalvi, Advocates, for the respondent in CWP No. 1845 of 2023 and for the petitioner in CWP No.2699 of 2024. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge These two writ petitions arise out of award dated 13.05.2022, passed by the learned Additional District Judge- II, Shimla, Camp at Theog, partly allowing the claim of the 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 ( 2026:HHC:36040-DB landowners, holding them entitled to Rs. 56,74,649/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount. The award was amended vide order dated 02.08.2022 passed in Civil Misc. Application No. 142-S/6 of 2022. For convenience, the landowner hereinafter is mentioned as the petitioner and the project beneficiary as the respondents. 2. Heard and considered the case files. Petitioner was owner in possession of the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 420, 423 and 424 Kitas 3, measuring 01-02-75 hectares, situated at Mouja Thanadi, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P. Petitioner had planted an apple orchard over part of the aforesaid land and had also grown vegetable crops and apple nursery. The respondent- Company constructed 400 KV/DC Karchham-Wangtoo- Abdulapr electricity transmission line. For this purpose, respondent constructed two complete tower upon petitioner’s land comprised in Khasra Nos. 420, 423 and 424 Kitas 3 utilizing 0-24-93 hectares. The respondent also constructed breast wall on the land of petitioner. The respondent further constructed 3 water tanks upon the land of petitioner in Khasra No. 424 and 423. Petitioner raised claim under the 3 ( 2026:HHC:36040-DB Telegraph Act before the learned Court below contending that in the process of constructing the transmission towers and stringing of the transmission line, respondent had caused damage to 232 apple trees standing over the subject land, which were totally damaged and 160 apple trees which were partially damaged to the extent of 50%. Petitioner also alleged damage caused to the apple nursery grown by them over parts of the land in question. Respondent refuted petitioner’s claim. On considering the entire case, learned Additional District Judge-II Shimla, Camp at Theog, held that petitioner had established on record complete damage caused to 232 apple fruit bearing trees of good quality, as also damage caused to 160 apple trees to the extent of 50%, three trees of walnut and also the apple nursery. The total loss caused to the apple trees and apple nursery was quantified as Rs. 99,08,568/-. After adjusting the amount already paid to the petitioner, the balance amount payable was worked out at Rs.99,08,568/- (-) Rs. 42,33,919/- = Rs. 56,74,649/- Interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid compensation from the date of filing of the petition was also awarded. Both sides feel aggrieved against the aforesaid award. 4 ( 2026:HHC:36040-DB 3 Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that during the process of construction of transmission line and also the stringing operations, only 155 apple trees were damaged; Learned Additional District Judge-II, Shimla, Camp at Theog, had unjustly relied upon the report Ex. PW1/A as also the report Ex. PW2/A in passing the impugned award, holding the complete damage having been caused to 232 apple trees, partial damage to 160 apple trees to the extent of 50% and damage to apple nursery. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, besides inviting attention to the statements made by the witnesses and the documents exhibited by them, also invited attention to the receipts appended alongwith reply- Annexure PW-6/B to PW-6/E as well as reports Ex. PW-2/A & PW-3/A. These documents include the receipts issued by the respondent company. The receipts have not been disputed by the respondents. In terms of these receipts, the respondent company has acknowledged not only partial damage to 160 apples trees but also complete damage to 232 apple trees over the subject land. 5 ( 2026:HHC:36040-DB It is well settled that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot reappreciate evidence and arrive at finding of facts unless the authorities below had either exceeded the jurisdiction or acted perversely. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajay Singh Vs. Khacheru & Ors2:- “16. It is a well-established principle that the High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot reappreciate the evidence and arrive at a finding of facts unless the authorities below had either exceeded its jurisdiction or acted perversely. 17. On the said settled proposition of law, we must make reference to the judgment of this Court in Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram3. The relevant portion thereof reads as under: “16. … It is well settled that the High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of fact of an appropriate court if there was no evidence to justify such a conclusion and if no reasonable person could possibly have come to the conclusion which the courts below have come or in other words a finding which was perverse in law. This principle is well settled. In D.N. Banerji v. P.R. Mukherjee [(1952) 2 SCC 619] it was laid down by this court that unless there was any grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law calling for intervention it was not for the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to interfere. If there is evidence on record on which a finding can be arrived at and if the court has not misdirected itself either on law or on fact, then in exercise of the power under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court 2 (2025) 3 SCC 266 3 (1986) 4 SCC 447 6 ( 2026:HHC:36040-DB should refrain from interfering with such findings made by the appropriate authorities. …” 18. The above said proposition of law was reiterated in Shamshad Ahmad v. Tilak Raj Bajaj4, wherein it was observed that: “38. Though powers of a High Court under Articles 226 and 227 are very wide and extensive over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised within the limits of law. The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a court of appeal or a court of error. It can neither review nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a subordinate court or inferior tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of law and to substitute its own decision for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The powers are required to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts and inferior tribunals within the limits of law.” Petitioner’s case had been that he had suffered complete loss of 232 apple trees, as also partial damage to 160 apple trees to the extent of 50% and damage to apple nursery on account of construction of transmission tower and stringing operation carried out by the respondents over the land in question. Petitioner’s stand has been vindicated by the concerned Patwari, PW-2. He had proved his report, Ex. PW-2/A. Assessment of the damage has been proved on record by the expert, a retired Deputy Director, Horticulture, who appeared as PW-1, and proved his evaluation report, Ex. 4 (2008) 9 SCC 1 7 ( 2026:HHC:36040-DB PW-1/A. Further, the receipts placed by the petitioner alongwith the reply, which are admittedly part of the record of the learned Lower Court, completely belie the stand taken by the respondents in denying complete loss to 232 fruit- bearing apple trees and partial loss to the extent of 50% to 160 apple trees as well as damage to the apple nursery. Learned counsel for the respondents raised a faint submission that the subject expert produced by the petitioner i.e. PW-1, had not prepared the report after inspecting the spot. However, no cogent evidence has been led by the respondents to disprove the expert report, Ex. PW- 1/A. The statements and reports are in conformity with each other. There is no contradiction as alleged. The respondents did not even lead any evidence of an expert, etc., to disprove the case set up by the petitioner. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II Shimla, Camp at Theog, holding that the petitioner was entitled to Rs. 56,74,649/- on account of loss caused to his apple trees and apple nursery. After adjusting the amount already paid to the petitioner, the balance amount payable was worked out at Rs. 99,08,568/- 8 ( 2026:HHC:36040-DB (-) Rs. 42,33,919/- = Rs. 56,74,649/- along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition. Accordingly, CWP No. 1845 of 2023, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. At this stage, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw CWP No. 2699 of 2024, fairly submitting that relief of compensation for the subject land on account of raising of towers/transmission line, as prayed for in this writ petition, cannot be granted by the learned District Judge and therefore, petitioner’s challenge to this an extent to the award dated 13.05.2022 for claiming the relief, is not sustainable. Learned Senior Counsel, however, prayed to withdraw this writ petition with liberty reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law, for the redressal of their grievances raised in this writ petition. Granting such liberty, CWP No.2699 of 2024 is dismissed as withdrawn. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua August 25, 2026 Judge rohit