IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RFAs No.102 and 113 of 1998. Judgment Reserved on: 15.06.2007. Date of decision: August 7, 2007. 1. RFA No.102 of 1998. Chamera Hydro Electric Project ….Appellant Versus Kirpa Ram & Others ….Respondents. 2. RFA No.113 of 1998. Chamera Hydro Electric Project ….Appellant Versus Ved Nidhi & Others. ….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 RFA No.102 of 1998. For the Appellants: Mr.Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate For Respondent No.1: Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate. For Respondents 2&3: Mr.Rajan Dewan, Additional Advocate General. RFA No.113 of 1998. For the Appellants: Mr.Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate For Respondents 1 to 7: Mr.R.K. Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents 8 & 9: Mr.Rajan Dewan, Additional Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud,J. These two appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as they were consolidated and tried together before the Land Reference Court. Land of the respondents herein, who were the claimants before the Reference Court, was acquired for 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 the purposes of establishing a Hydroelectric Project by the appellants. It is not disputed that the land was to submerge in the Dam Reservoir. The award of the Collector, dated 9th July, 1993 clearly states that: “… … … … … … … for the purposes namely land to be submerged in dam reservoir of Chamera H.E. Project, Stage-1 `NHPC Ltd.’, which was published in the H.,P. Gazette on 24.4.93. …. … … … … …” By an order dated 22.9.1995 the learned Reference Court, consolidated both the petitions out of which the present appeals arise as the land was the subject matter of the same Notification and the award. It is also directed that the entire evidence of the parties in one case shall be read in the second petition. The respondents-claimants closed their evidence on 24.11.1995 when time was granted to the respondents for leading the evidence in support of their case. No evidence was produced on behalf of the appellants and on 10.4.1996 the following order was recorded: “10.4.96 Present: Sh.M.S. Thakur, Advocate for petitioner. Sh.B.P.Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. 3 Sh.N.L.Sehajpal, Ld.DA for the respondent Nos.2 & 3. As per separate statements of Ld.counsel for the respondents, they do not want to lead any evidence, as such, evidence on behalf of respondents closed. Now to come up for arguments on 10.5.96.”. The statement recorded was: “Byan Shri Budhi Prakash, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Byan kiya ki respondent no.1 ki aur se koi shahadat pesh na karni hai aur shahadat khatam karta hun”. “(Statement of Shri Budhi Prakash, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Stated that respondent No.1 is not to lead any evidence and the evidence of the respondents be closed)” These facts are being noticed in order to adjudicate the grievance of the appellants that the learned Reference Court has not awarded the compensation in accordance with the well settled principles of law. The details of the land and the structures and the compensation made in favour of the respondents by the Land Acquisition Collector are given hereinbelow:- Sr.No. Case No.& Title of the petition. Area of land and name of structures acquired. Amount of compensation awarded. 1. LAC 23/1993 Kirpa Ram Vs. NHPC & Others 9 Bighas 5 Biswas Structures. Rs.87,210/- Rs.2,000/- 4 2. LAC No.24/1993 Ved Nidhi & Others Vs. NHPC & Others 14 Bighas 17 Biswas Structures: Rs.1,82,275/- Rs.9,368/- The learned Reference Court, after considering the totality of the evidence on the record, held that the sale deed Ex.P-2 could not be used as an accurate measure for determining just compensation payable since it is a solitary sale instance and also related to a small piece of land. The learned Reference Court, therefore, proceeded to deduct an amount of 88% from the value of this sale instance and awarded the compensation accordingly. On the question of structures, it was the admitted case that the schedule rates of PWD of 1987 were applied and that during the intervening period till the year 1992 when the acquisition proceedings were initiated, there had been an increase in the value of the structures standing thereon and thus, proceeded to assess the compensation. The normal rule for deduction for development charges is 25% to 331/3% and in some cases 50%. Reference may be made to:- Kasturi and others vs. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 354, Tejumal vs. State of U.P. (2003) 10 SCC 525, Ahad Brother vs. State of H.P. and another (2005) 1 SCC 545, State of Punjab vs. Harcharan Singh (2006)9 SCC 723, Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad 5 Development Authority (2004) 10 SCC 745 and Hanumanta Reddy vs. Land Acquisition Officer (2003) 2 SCC 642. The learned Reference Court, having proceeded to make a huge deduction of 88%, the appellants cannot make any grievance regarding excessive payment of compensation. This deduction itself more than balances the equities in favour of the parties. The appellants having chosen not to lead any evidence, cannot now make a grievance that the determination by the learned trial Court was not in accordance with law. These appeals are therefore dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. August 7, 2007 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge. 6 “Himachal Pradesh Govt. issued a Notification vide No.VIDUT-Chh(S) 24/92, dated 30.3.93 under Section 4 and 17-(4) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984 (hereinafter called the Act) intending to acquire Land, Structures and Trees comprising Khasra Nos. “… … … … … … … for the purposes namely land to be submerged in dam reservoir of Chamera H.E. Project, Stage-1 `NHPC Ltd.’, which was published in the H.,P. Gazette on 24.4.93. The copies of notifications were displayed at conspicuous place in the locality and wide publicity caused to the interested persons through the process server of this Office on 28.4.93. Its publication was done in two daily news papers namely Vir Partap and The Tribune (English) on 23.4.93 and 29.4.93 respectively to meet the requirement of section-4(i)(b) and 17-4 of Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984. No objections to the proposed acquisition of land were received from any interested person. The draft Notification in this regard was sent to the H.P. Govt.on 5.5.93 for issuance under section 6&7 and 17(i) of the Act ibid. The notification under section 6&7 and notice 17(1) of the Act was issued by H.P. Govt.vide their No.Vidyut-Chh(S)-24/92 dated 28.5.93. which was further published in two daily news papers namely Vir Partap and The Tribune (English) on 7 11.6.93 and 14.6.93 respectively which was circulated n the locality. The declaration was further given wide publicity by displaying it at conspicuous place in mohal Prahnule through the process server of this office on 14.6.93 and was published in H.P. Gazette on 19.6.93. … … … “