Himachal Pradesh High Court
The General Manager vs Pawan Kumar And Another on 8 July, 2025
1
( 2025:HHC:21814 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RFA No.67 of 2014 a/w connected
.
matters
Date of Decision : 08.07.2025
1. RFA No.67 of 2014
The General Manager, NTPC Kol Dam Project
...... Appellant
Versus
Pawan Kumar and another
......Respondents
2. RFA No.68 of 2014
The General Manager, NTPC Kol Dam Project
...... Appellant
Versus
Desh Raj and another
......Respondents
3. RFA No.69 of 2014
The General Manager, NTPC Kol Dam Project
...... Appellant
Versus
Seema and another
......Respondents
4. RFA No.70 of 2014
The General Manager, NTPC Kol Dam Project
...... Appellant
Versus
Padam Raj and another
......Respondents
5. RFA No.71 of 2014
The General Manager, NTPC Kol Dam Project
...... Appellant
Versus
Hari Om and another
......Respondents
6. RFA No.72 of 2014
The General Manager, NTPC Kol Dam Project
...... Appellant
Versus
::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2025 21:18:00 :::CIS
2
( 2025:HHC:21814 )
Anupma and another
......Respondents
7. RFA No.73 of 2014
.
The General Manager, NTPC Kol Dam Project
...... Appellant
Versus
Basantpur Khadi Gram Udyog Gen Kalian Samiti and another
......Respondents
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the appellant(s) : Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate, through Video
Conferencing with Mr. Pranjal Munjal and Mr. Harshit
Sharma, Advocates.
For the respondents : Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate, through Video
Conferencing and Mr. Mukesh Sharma and Ms. Rajni
Gandhi, Advocates, for respondent No.1, in all the
appeals, except RFA No.73 of 2014.
Mr. Sushil Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent
No.2, in RFA No.73 of 2014.
Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, Additional Advocate
General, for respondent No.2/State, in all the
appeals.
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral)
RFA No.67 of 2014 a/w RFA Nos.68 to 73 of 2014
All these Regular First Appeals arise out of a common reference
Award dated 13.12.2013, hence, they are being taken up together for
adjudication. Vide order dated 03.01.2011, the Reference Court has
consolidated all these matter with Reference Petition No.28 of 2010.
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
( 2025:HHC:21814 )
2. The present appellants are the beneficiaries for whom the land was
acquired by the State of Himachal Pradesh for construction of Kol Dam
.
Hydro Power Project. In the case at hand, land measuring 2-0-11 Bighas
were acquired in Village Tatapani, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, Himachal
Pradesh. The requisite necessary notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act was issued by the State of Himachal Pradesh on 09.05.2005.
As a squeal to the aforesaid notification, Award No.80 of 2008 was
announced by the Acquisition Collector, Kol Dam, on 08.03.2008.
3. Perusal of the Award reflects that insofar as land acquired was
concerned, acquisition charges were paid on the basis of classification of
land. Land in the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector was
classified into eight categories. The highest award was made for Dhani Abal
and least was paid for Gair Mumkin/Khadyatar.
4. Insofar as structures over the acquired land were concerned,
measurements and assessments of the same were got done by the Civil
Engineers of the Office of the Land Acquisition Collector, Kol Dam, Bilaspur,
Himachal Pradesh. Subsequent to the measurement and assessment,
notice under Section 9 of the Act was given to the owners of the land qua the
structures to file their objections, if any with respect to the measurement and
claims thereupon. No one has filed objections with respect to the
measurement. Hence, based on the measurement and assessment made
compensation was awarded qua the structure.
5. Feeling aggrieved of the Award bearing No.80 of 2008 announced on
08.03.2008, the land owners and structures owners preferred appropriate
Reference Petitions under Section 18 of the Act before the concerned Court.
( 2025:HHC:21814 )
The Reference Petitions, in the case at hand were decided on 13.12.2013.
Insofar as acquisition for land was concerned, uniform rate was awarded by
.
the Reference Court. The uniform rate awarded was the highest
compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector for the eight
classes of land acquired. The Land Acquisition Collector had awarded
Rs.6.41 lacs approximately for "Dhani Abal, therefore, this highest rate was
made applicable for the entire land.
6. Insofar as structures acquired were concerned, the Reference Court
noticed that in the measurement and assessment made, no amount had
been paid to the structure owners on account of labour charges, foundation
building charges, carriage charges and electricity charges. In assessing the
structures, reliance was placed on the "Guidelines for Preparation of
Estimates" laid by the Public Works Department and placed on record as
Ex.PW1/H. The assessments of structures by the Land Acquisition Collector
were placed on record as Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/D.
7. In the aforesaid backdrop, there are two contentions, primarily raised
by learned counsel for the appellants/beneficiary of the acquisition:
a. The first submission is with respect to the uniform rate
awarded;
b. The second submission is with respect to additions made by
the Reference Court, while awarding, with respect to structures
acquired.
8. Insofar as the first contention is concerned, the law with respect to
award of compensation at uniform rates, when the purpose of acquisition is
common and no developmental activity is required to be carried out is no
longer res integra and stands settled by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
( 2025:HHC:21814 )
Himmat Singh and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another,
(2013) 16 SCC 392 (para 34); Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Dead) By
.
Legal Representatives and others vs. State of Karnataka and another,
(2015) 10 SCC 469 (paras 80 and 81); as also this Court in RFA No. 953 of
2012, titled as Land Acquisition Collector & another vs. Jatinder Singh,
decided on 01.06.2016 and other connected matters.
9. Insofar as the second contention is concerned, the measurement and
structures, in the case at hand, are concerned, the same were got done by
the staff of the office of the Land Acquisition Collector concerned. The same
is evident from the contents of Award No.80 of 2008, passed by the Land
Acquisition Collector on 08.03.2008. Item No.4 in the Award, deals with the
compensation of houses/built up structures. The measurement and
assessment so done has been placed on record as Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/D.
From the perusal of the measurement/assessment done, it is evident that no
amount has been awarded insofar as carriage is concerned. Other than the
aforesaid, insofar as raising of foundation of houses, in the case at hand, is
concerned, no amount for the same has been given in the measurement and
assessment so done. Conspicuous by absence is also the non-payment of
amount on account of labour charges incurred for the construction of the
houses, in the case at hand. A meager amount has been awarded on
account of electricity supply and electrical fittings/installations.
10. From a perusal of Ex.PW1/H i.e. "Guidelines for preparation of
assessments" prepared by the Public Works Department, it is evident from
Item No.14 thereof that normally insofar as water supply, sanitary installation,
electricity supply, fittings thereof are concerned for both 12.5% of the cost of
( 2025:HHC:21814 )
the building, needs to be allotted. In the case at hand, allotment of electrical
installation has been done on the basis of measurement/assessment. No
.
allocation in the assessment has been made with respect to water supply
and sanitary installation, for which also structure owners are entitled.
11. Keeping in view the aforesaid non-grant, I see no reason to interfere
with the amount so awarded for electrical charges, therefore, the present
appeal(s) are dismissed, being devoid of merit. Pending miscellaneous
application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
CMP No.14985 of 2025 in RFA No.73 of 2014
12. No reply is intended to be filed on behalf of the non-applicants.
Non-applicants have no objection, if in case, the amount is ordered to be
released in favour of the applicant.
13. In this case only land was acquired and there was no structure
involved.
14 For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. In
the case at hand, 50% of the awarded amount stands already released in
favour of the applicant. The balance 50% of the amount lying deposited
in the Registry of this Court along-with proportionate interest accrued
thereupon is ordered to be released in favour of the applicant. The
amount be remitted to the bank accounts, details whereof, have been
given in Paragraph-7 of the application, subject to proper verification of its
identity. The application stands disposed of.
( Bipin Chander Negi)
July 08, 2025 (KS) Judge
