Chattisgarh High Court
Ntpc Limited vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 July, 2022
1
FAM No. 149 of 2016
& FAM No. 150 of 2016
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
FAM No. 149 of 2016
Judgment Reserved On : 13/07/2022
Judgment Delivered On : 27/07/2022
• NTPC Limited Through The General Manager In Charge, Sipat Super
Thermal Power Project, Post Office Sipat, District Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh,
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Bilaspur, District
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.......Non Applicant ,
2. Land Acquisition Officer / Sub Divisional Officer, Bilaspur, District
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh .......Non Applicant
3. Arun Tiwari, S/o Late Shri J. P. Tiwari, Aged About 49 Years R/o
Village Sipat, Tehsil Masturi, District Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh..........Applicant
---- Respondent
FAM No. 150 of 2016
• NTPC Limited Through The General Manger In Charge, Sipat Super
Thermal Power Project, Post Office Sipat, District Bilapsur,
Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Bilaspur, District
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.......Non Applicant
2. Land Acquisition Officer / Sub Divisional Officer, Divisional Officer,
Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh....Non Applicant
3. Aditya Tiwari, S/o Arun Tiwari, Aged About 31 Years R/o Village
Sipat, Tehsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh..........Applicant,
2
FAM No. 149 of 2016
& FAM No. 150 of 2016
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Dr. N.K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate with Shri BD Guru and
Shri Anuroop Panda, Advocates.
For Respondents 1 & 2 : Shri Lalit Jangde, Govt. Advocate.
For Respondent No.3 : Shri Mukesh Sharma, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Goutam Bhaduri &
Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, JJ
C A V JUDGMENT
The following judgment of the Court was passed by Deepak Kumar
Tiwari, J.
1. The aforesaid Appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment
as they arise out of impugned order dated 22 nd April, 2016 passed by the
1st Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in MJC Nos.32/2005 & 103/2002
whereby the reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (henceforth 'the Act') against the award dated 10.5.2002
passed by the SDO cum Land Acquisition Officer was allowed.
2. At the request of the appellant-NTPC, the State Government had
acquired the land ad measuring 155.22 acres situated at Village Seepat
for the purpose of installation of Power Grid and Switchyard
construction for its Seepat Super Thermal Power Project. Due
procedure for acquisition of the land as laid down in the Act was also
followed and the notifications under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act were also
published in the Official Gazette as well as local newspapers and
FAM No. 149 of 2016
& FAM No. 150 of 2016
objections were also invited. After hearing the objections, the order
dated 11.12.2001 was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Bilaspur.
As per Section 4 (2) of the Act, a Committee conducted a spot
inspection of the land sought to be acquired for the purpose of
determination of amount of compensation and vide report dated
30.4.2002, the Committee opined that the amount of compensation for
acquisition of the land should be determined considering the land to be
agricultural land, not to be used for residential purpose. The
compensation to be awarded in lieu of acquisition of land bearing
Khasra No.12 belonging to applicant - Arun Tiwari, ad measuring 4.93
acre was proposed at Rs.26,34,182/-. However, out of total area of 4.93
acres, only 3.04 acres was found to be suitable for agricultural purposes
so as to be awarded the proposed amount of compensation, which after
modification was fixed at Rs.14,91,014/-, as per the order of
Commissioner, Bilaspur Division and the same was accepted by the
applicant Shri Arun Tiwari.
3. In MJC No.103/2002, the acquisition of land bearing Khasra No.654/1
belonging to Aditya Tiwari, area ad measuring 1.00 acre situated at
village Seepat was proposed at Rs.6,27,268.28/- and after modification,
the same was fixed at Rs.2,56,113/- in pursuance of the direction issued
by the Commissioner, Bilaspur vide order dated 10.5.2002, which was
also accepted by him.
4. The respondent-applicant claimed to have raised an objection to the
FAM No. 149 of 2016
& FAM No. 150 of 2016
amount of compensation paid in lieu of acquisition of land on the
ground that there was wrong determination of amount of compensation
by the Land Acquisition Officer, inasmuch as the amount of
compensation should have been granted considering the land to be
proximate to the developed area. Being aggrieved, the respondent -
applicant preferred an application under Section 18 of the Act against
the order dated 10.5.2002 before the Collector, Bilaspur, whereupon the
learned Collector by order dated 3.9.2002 referred the case of the
respondent - applicant under Section 18 of the Act to the District Judge,
Bilaspur. In the said reference, an award dated 29.3.2007 has been
passed by the 8th Additional District Judge, FTC, Bilaspur substantially
increasing the amount of compensation in favour of respondent - Arun
Tiwari to the tune of Rs.34,46,388/- in MJC No.38/05. In MJC
No.18/06 the award was passed on 1.9.2007 and compensation was
enhanced to the tune of Rs.11,05,752/- in favour of Aditya Tiwari. It is
pertinent to mention here that the appellant - NTPC was not arrayed as
party in the said case and as the said orders have adversely and
prejudicially affected the appellant/NTPC, it had preferred an
application on 26.7.2004 under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the CPC for
impleading it as a necessary party, however, the said application was
dismissed by order dated 10.8.2004 passed by the 4th Additional District
Judge, Bilaspur.
5. Being aggrieved by the award dated 29.3.2007 & 1.9.2007 passed by
FAM No. 149 of 2016
& FAM No. 150 of 2016
the 8th Additional District Judge, FTC, Bilaspur, the appellant - NTPC
had preferred FAM Nos.84/2007 and 85/2007 under Section 54 of the
Act before this Court, which was allowed and the award dated
29.3.2007 & 1.9.2007 was set aside with a direction to the Additional
District Judge to decide the reference within a period of 6 months afresh
and the NTPC was also allowed to be arrayed as party respondent in the
reference case. After the order dated 8.4.2008 passed by this Court in
FAM Nos.84/2007 & 85/2007, the reference under Section 18 of the
Act was decided by the Court below afresh upholding the earlier award
dated 29.3.2007 & 1.9.2007. Against the award dated 1.1.2009, the
appellant had preferred FAM Nos.7/2009 & 19/2009 under Section 54
of the Act raising several grounds, which was decided by this Court on
17.11.2015 setting aside the impugned order dated 1.1.2009 and
remanding the matter for fresh decision of the Reference. After the
judgment passed by this Court, the learned Court below by order dated
22.4.2016 again committed the same mistake and has not properly
considered the material available on record. Hence these Appeals were
filed.
6. Perusal of the impugned orders would reveal that the following relief
was granted in favour of the respondent-applicant
"17. mHk; i{k dh vksj ls izLrqr lk{; ,oa /kkjk 18 Hkw& vtZu
vf/kfu;e ds funsZ'k rFkk vf/kxzfgr Hkwfe dks laHkkouk ls ;qDr gksus ds
dkj.k vkosnd n~okjk izLrqr vkosnu Lohdkj djrs gq, vkosnd ds i{k
esa fuEukuqlkj vkns'k vukosndx.k ds fo#n~/k ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS &
FAM No. 149 of 2016
& FAM No. 150 of 2016
1 vkosnd dks eqvkotk jkf'k esa 30 izfr'kr rks"k.k dh jkf'k izkIr gksxh
A
2 vf/kfu.kZ; ds i'pkr mDr jkf'k ij ,d o"kZ ds vUnj jkf'k tek
ugh fd, tkus ij 09 izfr'kr okf"kZd lk/kkj.k C;kt vkosnd vukosnd
x.k ls izkIr djsxk A
3 vf/kfu.kZ; ds i'pkr nks o"kZ rd mDr vkf/kD; jkf'k vnk ugh fd,
tkus ij vkosnd vukosnd x.k ls 18 izfr'kr okf"kZd lk/kkj.k C;kt
mDr jkf'k ij izkIr djsxk A
4 vukosndx.k viuk ,oa vkosnd dk okn O;; ogu djsaxs A
vf/koDrk 'kqYd [email protected]& #i;s fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkrk gS A"
7. From the aforesaid relief, it is explicit that no enhancement was made in
the amount of compensation and indisputably the amount of
compensation was awarded after the approval of the competent
authority as per Section 11 (2) of the Act. The total compensation after
taking into consideration the interest and solatium was awarded under
Section 23 (1)(A) and Section 23 (2) of the Act. The following
calculations were made as per the directions of the Commissioner:-
Name of Land & Area Compensation Solatium u/s 23 Interest u/s 23
claimant (2) of the Act (1)(A) of the
@ 30% Act @ 12%
Aditya Tiwari Khasra Rs.1,81,080/- Rs.54,324/- Rs.19,919/-
No.654/1, 1 acre
Tree Rs.790/-
Total Rs.2,56,113/-
Compensation
Arun Tiwari Khasra No.12, Rs.8,49,777/- Rs.2,54,933/- Rs.93,475/-
4.93 acre
Towards Well, Rs.2,92,829/-
Tubewell +
Home + Tree
Total Rs.14,91,014/-
Compensation
8. It is also not disputed that the aforesaid awarded amounts were also
FAM No. 149 of 2016
& FAM No. 150 of 2016
accepted by the respondent No.3-applicant under protest and the
reference under Section 18 of the Act being dissatisfied with the
aforesaid amount of compensation were made to the District Judge.
9. From perusal of the impugned orders, it is apparent that calculation of
compensation was not modified in the final relief, and the solatium and
the interest were already calculated as per the statutory rules. The said
compensation has also been received by the applicants after passing of
the impugned orders and since no enhancement was made, there was no
additional payment to be made by the appellant.
10.Upon being asked by the Court, learned counsel for the respondent
No.3-applicant fairly admits that they have not preferred any appeal
against the impugned order, though from the said order, no additional
payment is required to be made. According to counsel for respondent
No.3, his grievance is that as total compensation was not properly
awarded as the amount of compensation was not modified in the final
relief of the impugned order, which ought to be required to file an
appeal, but the respondent No.3 have not filed any appeal.
11.Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant also agrees that from the
aforesaid order, there is no extra payment to be made by the appellant.
However, he submits that certain observation was made in para-15 of
the impugned order which reads thus:-
"15. izdj.k esa vkosnd us fHkUu fHkUu izdkj ls vf/kxzfgr Hkwfe dh nj
r; fd;k gSA iwoZ esa mlds n~okjk fn;s x;s lk{; esa Hkwfe dh nj
5]00][email protected]& ,oa 25]00][email protected]& izfr ,dM+ r; dh x;h gSSA fjek.M
FAM No. 149 of 2016
& FAM No. 150 of 2016
i'pkr izLrqr vkosnd ds lk{; esa Hkwfe dh nj 10]00][email protected]& #i;sa izfr
,dM+ gksuk O;Dr fd;k x;k A bl izdkj vkosnd viusa lk{; ij fLFkj
ugh gSA mlds n~okjk Lo;a Hkwfe dh nj r; dh tkrh jgh gS A Hkwfe dh
eqvkotk jkf'k fu/kkZfjr fd;s tkus ds laca/k esa vf/kxzg.k ds le; Hkwfe
ds fuf'pr izpfyr ewY; ds vk/kkj ij vf/kxzfgr Hkwfe dk ewY; fu/kZkj.k
fd;k x;k Fkk A o"kZ 1998 ls dk;Zokgh izkjEHk djrsa gq, lu~ 2001 esa
Hkwfe vf/kxzfgr dh xbZ gSA iqu% vukosnd dzekad &3 n~okjk lu~ 2001 esa
Hkwfe vf/kxzg.k dh dk;Zokgh dh x;h A vf/kxzg.k dh frfFk dks vkosnd
dh Hkwfe vkoklh; ;k O;olkf;d laHkkoukvksa ls ;qDr ugh Fkh A vkosnd
dh vksj ls d`f"k Hkwfe ls lacaf/kr [kljk ikaplkyk fd'rcanh ch & 1
Hkwfe dh yxku vnk fd;s tkus dh jlhn] d`f"k ;ksX; [kkn cht izkIr
fd;s tkus dh jlhn ,oa mDr vk'k; dk dksbZ vU; nLrkost izdj.k esa
is'k ugh fd;k tkuk Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS A blfy, vf/kxzg.k ds le;
vf/kxzfgr Hkwfe ek= iM+rh Hkwfe Fkh A fujh{k.k ds nkSjku dqN fgLlksa esa
ek= uhyfxjh ds o`{k jksfir gS vkSj dqN fgLlks esa /kku dh Qly
yxk;k tkuk mYysf[kr gS A fdUrq mDr fgLlk vkosnd dh Hkwfe dk
fgLlk Fkk bl laca/k esa vkosnd us dksbZ nLrkost is'k ugh fd;k gSA
vkosnd dh Hkwfe ij ,d V~;qcosy ] iEi gkml ] dPpk jkLrk fujh{k.k
izfrosnu esa vafdr gSA vkoklh; ;k d`f"k iz;kstu dk dksbZ lk{; izLrqr
ugh gS A fdUrq mDr Hkwfe ij Hkfo"; dh laHkkoukvksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs
gq;s fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gS A blfy, vokMZ izfrosnu ,oa mPp
Lrjh; lfefr dh fjiksVZ ij iqu% fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gS A
12.Learned Senior Counsel also refers to Section 24 (fifthly) of the Act
which reads thus:-
"Section 24 Matters to be neglected in determining
compensation. But the Court shall not take into
consideration-
Fifthly, any increase to the value of the land acquired
likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put
when acquired;"
13.In view of the above, as the respondent No.3-applicants have not
challenged the impugned orders and also made submission before this
Court that earlier the award amount has already been satisfied to the full
extent, so nothing remains to be paid by the appellant in the aforesaid
acquisition.
FAM No. 149 of 2016
& FAM No. 150 of 2016
14.In the circumstances, we are of the view that as in the final relief, no
extra payment is to be made by the appellant and any such observation
which has not been considered while granting the final relief has not
adversely affected the right of the appellant, as the awards which were
challenged by way of reference under Section 18 of the Act, in such
awards after taking into consideration in the final determination,
solatium and interest which were required to be added according to the
statutory provisions and which were properly reckoned, had already
been paid to the claimants. So in such situation, when the amount of
compensation was not modified in any term in the impugned orders, no
question arises for payment of solatium and interest, in the facts of the
case, as the orders are meaningless and therefore, the same are not
sustainable.
15.Accordingly, the Appeals are allowed and the impugned orders are set
aside.
16.Parties shall bear their own costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Goutam Bhaduri) (Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Judge Judge
Barve
