Court rules in favor of Sat Dev Singh, mandates Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. to provide Rs. 7 lakhs per bigha, ensuring equitable compensation for acquired land.
In a landmark judgment, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled in favor of petitioner Sat Dev Singh, granting him enhanced compensation for his land acquired under the Renukaji Dam Project. The court mandated the Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. (HPPCL) to compensate Singh at a rate of Rs. 7 lakhs per bigha, consistent with the compensation awarded to other landowners under similar circumstances. This decision comes despite the initial compensation being settled through negotiated rates.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, emphasized the importance of ensuring non-discriminatory compensation to landowners who voluntarily agreed to sell their land at negotiated rates. The court recognized a written assurance provided to Singh at the time of acquisition, which guaranteed future compensation enhancements in line with any subsequent awards.
Singh's land was initially acquired for Rs. 16,27,500 with a promise from the respondents that any future enhancements in compensation would be honored. The assurance was intended to protect voluntary sellers from being disadvantaged in comparison to those whose compensation was determined by the Land Acquisition Collector or the courts.
The court's decision referenced several past judgments, including a significant ruling from 2019, which had already upheld Singh's entitlement to enhanced compensation based on Award No. 658. This award had set compensation rates per bigha according to land classification. However, a subsequent decision in RFA No. 145 of 2018 standardized compensation to Rs. 7 lakhs per bigha, regardless of land classification.
The respondents' defense, citing the doctrine of constructive res judicata and procedural bars under the Civil Procedure Code, was rejected. The court held that not having pursued a reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act did not preclude Singh from claiming enhanced compensation, especially in light of the assurance and subsequent judicial pronouncements enhancing compensation uniformly.
The judgment also invoked the Supreme Court's directives in Sunder v. Union of India, mandating statutory benefits such as solatium and interest to be paid to Singh. The court imposed costs on HPPCL for non-compliance with its previous assurances, instructing that part of these costs be contributed to the President, Red Cross Society.
This decision reaffirms the legal principle that assurances made during land acquisition negotiations must be honored, and it sets a precedent for equitable treatment of landowners in future acquisitions.
Bottom Line :
Land Acquisition - Compensation enhancement for acquired land based on subsequent awards - Petitioner's entitlement to enhanced compensation despite initial negotiated rates upheld.
Statutory provision(s): Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Sections 23(1A), 23(2), 18; Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order 2, Rule 2; Doctrine of Res Judicata; Sunder v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 211
