Raj Kumari & Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:-

“That the respondents No.1 to 3 may kindly be directed to pay the amount of enhanced compensation of Rs.73,12,41,660/- (the amount arrived at after deducting the amount already received by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) with up to date interest, as mentioned in para No.15 supra (alongwith all statutory benefits), on the basis of undertaking Annexure P-1.”

The case of the petitioners is that for the purpose of construction of Renuka Ji Dam, for generating 30 MW of electricity and further to supply drinking water to Delhi, as respondents No.2 and 3 were in the need of the land, therefore, to avoid the lengthy and complicated process of Land Acquisition Act, it was proposed that those persons who voluntarily through negotiation sell their land to respondent No.2, will be further entitled for the enhanced rate of their land as per the award/ rates given by the Reference Court are acquisition of the land of that area acquired for the same purpose, if any. It is further the contention of the petitioners that they were in possession of land measuring 191-00 Bigha, comprised in khasra No.104/1-372-1/4-374, measuring 185-5 Bighas and ½ share of khasra No.3, i.e. 5-15 Bigha, situated in Village Siun, Sub Tehsil Nohra, District Sirmaur, H.P. The same was required by respondents No.2 and 3 for construction of the Dam. Respondents No.2 to 5 approached the petitioners for the sale thereof through negotiation. On the request of said respondents, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners who was a rustic villager and was not in a position to follow the lengthy procedure of the land acquisition, agreed to sell their entire land measuring 191 bighas to the respondents. The land was sold for an amount of Rs.1,47,56,250/-vide Sale Deed No.266, dated 24.11.2009, with the condition that in case the Land Acquisition Collector acquires for the same purpose and if the rates are enhanced, the respondents shall pay the same enhanced rates to the petitioners for the land in issue.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has apprised the Court that in terms of Annexure P-1, the assurance was given on behalf of Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Limited to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and further, now despite the fact that the award of acquisition of other land for same purpose stands announced by the Competent Authority as well as affirmed/enhanced by the the Courts of Law which is much more than the rate at which the land was purchased by the respondents, yet the respondents are not fulfilling the assurance given by them. Learned counsel also drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure P-3, in terms whereof, the petitioners were informed that their grievance cannot be redressed forthwith as the matters qua enhancement of award were pending in appeal in the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh. Learned counsel also drew the attention of the Court to Annexure P-2, appended with the Writ Petition which is the copy of the judgment of Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Court, dated 09.12.2019, passed in RFA No.171 of 2016, alongwith other connected matters and submitted that despite the fact that the issue has now attained finality, the respondents are not honouring their assurance.

Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 5 has submitted that a fraud has been played by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, who purchased 191 bighas of land by violating the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972 and in the light of this fact, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief. He also drew the attention of the Court to CMP No.22991 of 2024, in which impleadment of Financial Commissioner (Revenue), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, District Collector, District Sirmour at Nahan and Registrar-cum-Assistant Collector, Nohra, District Sirmour, H.P. was prayed by The Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Limited and submitted that as fraud vitiates everything, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief prayed for. Learned counsel further informed the Court that as per his instructions, Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh has issued directions to Deputy Commissioner, Solan to inquire into the matter.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the pleadings as well as the documents appended therewith, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners cannot be deprived of the assurance that was given by respondents No.2 and 3 at the time when they entered into the Sale Deed with the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners.

This Court in fact expresses its displeasure on the ways and means that are being adopted by respondents No.2 and 3 to deny the legitimate claims to the petitioners.

It is a matter of record that the said respondents purchased 191 bighas of land from the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. Why no inquiry was held by the said respondents at the relevant time with regard to the status of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners as also the factum as to whether he could have purchased or held such land in accordance with law could not be answered during the course of arguments. Incidently, the concerned person is now dead.

Now, simply because a huge amount may have to be shelled out by the respondents in the light of the assurance that was given by them to the petitioners, they cannot be allowed to take a complete somersault and take the pleas of fraud etc. to deny the legitimate claim of the petitioners, that too when the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners is no more to defend himself. In fact, this Court at the first instance does not understand that when the land was being out-rightly purchased by respondents No.2 and 3, then what compelled them to give the assurance as was given by them in terms of Annexure P-1. However, rightly or wrongly, as the assurance stood given by the respondents, now they cannot be allowed to wriggle out of the said assurance on the pleas as is set-forth in the short reply filed by them.

Incidently, this Court can also not loose sight of the fact that in terms of Annexure P-3, no such plea was taken in the said response and all that was mentioned therein was that the claim of the petitioners cannot be honoured as the matters regarding enhancement of the awarded rate were still under appeal in this Court. Thus, it is evident and apparent that the stand that has now been taken by the said respondents in the short reply is nothing, but an afterthought and has been taken to deprive the petitioners of their legitimate rights.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay to the petitioners the enhanced compensation to which claim they are entitled to in terms of the assurance (Annexure P-1). In case the needful is done within a period of three months from today, the same shall not entail any interest thereupon, but if the needful is not done within three months, the same shall also entail interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the petition. The respondents No.2 and 3 are also burdened with cost of Rs.50,000/-, to be paid to the petitioners.

The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.