Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Kumar vs Unknown on 16 December, 2021
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 16th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.1177 of 2018
Between:-
RAMESH KUMAR
SON OF LATE SHRI BRASTU
R/O VILLAGE RANDOL,
POST OFFICE TATTAPANI,
TEHSIL KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
.....PETITIONER
(BY SH. SANDEEP SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
THROUGH ITS CHIEF
SECRETARY (REVENUE) TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA-171002.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MANDI, DISTRICT MANDI,
HIMACHAL PRADESH.
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
SHIMLA DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
4. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (CIVIL)
KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
5. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (LAO)
KOLDAM, BILASPUR,
DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P.
6. NATIONAL THERMAL POWER
CORPORATION LIMITED (NTPC)
KOLDAM THROUGH ITS GENERAL
MANAGER, BARMANA,
DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P.
.....RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:26:44 :::CIS
2
(SH. ASHWANI K. SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERAL WITH SH. VIKRANT CHANDEL AND SH.
KUNAL THAKUR, DEPUTY ADVOCATES GENERAL,
FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5
SH. JAGDISH THAKUR, ADVOCATE FOR
.
RESPONDENT NO.6)
_________________________________________________________________
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court
passed the following:
ORDER
It is jointly stated by the learned counsel for the
parties that Civil Writ Petitions No.1176 and 1969 of 2018,
involving identical questions, have been decided by the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 25.10.2021.
Interference with the writ petitions was declined by the Hon'ble
Court, though liberty was reserved to the petitioners, therein, to
avail the remedy to claim compensation/damages before the
appropriate Civil Court. Relevant parts from the judgment are as
under:-
" 9. The question however is whether it would be justified
for this Court to entertain the dispute of present
nature in the scope of its jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. What is required to
be decided in the present matter is that if the land
and houses of the petitioners have not actually been
acquired, can be any justification for this Court to
direct the respondents to pass award under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which is now replaced
by Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013. In our view, it is not as this Act would not
apply to the present fact situation. Once the
aforementioned Act is not attracted, the
rehabilitation and resettlement of the petitioners
under aforementioned Act is not applicable to them.
Besides, the petitioners have also to prove that on
account of regular seepage into their land, it has
.
become unusable, partly or completely and if partly,
to what extent and if completely, then how? What
would also be required to be decided is whether the
damage caused to the houses of the petitioner is
permanent and perpetual in nature. All these issues
would be required to be decided in order to
determine as to what extent the loss is caused to the
petitioners and on that basis, then to quantify the
amount of compensation. These all are the questions
which can be decided only if the parties lead
evidence in support of their respective cases. The
petitioners for this purpose would be required to
adduce evidence by producing witnesses and
opinion of the experts for assessment of the damage
to their land and property. This Court in exercise of
power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
would not be in a position to entertain all these
complex issues involving questions of fact. Only the
Civil Court having competent jurisdiction, would be
more appropriate remedy for the petitioners to claim
compensation or damages, if so advised, by filing a
civil suit for such relief.
10. It is trite that when a matter involves disputed
questions of facts and law, the High Court would be
slow in entertaining the petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. The exercise of writ
jurisdiction by the High Court is a plenary power
which is to be used in exceptional circumstances.
The petitioners have not been able to make out any
such case, which can be entertained under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court
would not be justified in exercising such a power to
the exclusion of other available remedies only when
it finds that action of the State or its instrumentality
is arbitrary and unreasonable and as such is
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
.
The Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Punjab
National Bank and others Versus Atmanand Singh
and others, (2020) 6 Supreme Court Cases 256, held
that where the petition raises questions of fact of
complex nature, which may for their determination
require oral and documentary evidence to be
produced and proved by the party concerned, the
High Court should be loath in entertaining such writ
petition and instead must relegate the parties to the
remedy of a civil suit.
rIn view of the aforesaid discussion, we are not
inclined to entertain these writ petitions, however,
with liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy of
claiming compensation/damages before the
appropriate Civil Court
2. It is not in dispute that the present writ petition
involves the same questions as were involved in the aforesaid two
writ petitions. Therefore, the observations made in the aforesaid
two writ petitions are applicable to the instant case as well.
Accordingly, this writ petition is held to be not maintainable.
Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail the remedy before
appropriate Court for claiming compensation/damages etc. The
writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the
pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Judge
December16, 2021
R.Atal
