IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP Nos. 81, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285 and 286 of 2001. Date of decision June 19, 2008. Bhakra Beas Management Board and Anr… Petitioners. Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners Mr. Naresh Kumar Sood, Advocate. For the State Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. AG. For the claimants S/Sh. Bhuvnesh Sharma and Ramakant Sharma, Advocates. For respondent 1 (a) Shri Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral). It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that Shri Ramesh Singh, respondent No. 4 in CWP 284 of 2001, Shri Narotam Singh, respondent No. 4 in CWP 278 of 2001 and Shri Ganga Singh, respondent No. 4 in CWP 282 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - of 2001 are dead and their legal representatives may be ordered to be brought on record. The prayer is not opposed by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Accordingly, the legal representatives of the deceased respondents are ordered to be brought on record. Learned counsel for the respondents have filed vakalatnamas on behalf of the legal representatives of deceased respondents, i.e. Subhash Singh Jaswal and Sanjay Singh Jaswal, both sons of Shri Ramesh Singh deceased respondent No. 4 in CWP 284 of 2001; Smt. Sheela Devi, wife, Munish Kumar, son and Anuradha, daughter of Shri Narotam Singh, respondent No. 4 in CWP 278 of 2001 and Sansar Singh, Virender Singh and Kushal Singh, all sons of Shri Ganga Singh, respondent No. 4 in CWP 282 of 2001. Kushal Singh, son of Shri Ganga Singh has also died and is survived by legal representatives, namely Shanti Devi (wife), Jagjit Singh, son, Monika, daughter and Baljit Singh, son. All of them are ordered to be brought on record. Let necessary corrections be carried out in the relevant writ petitions by the Registry of this Court. - 3 - All these writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order as they involve common questions of law and facts. The petitioner(s) herein is the beneficiary of acquisition proceedings of land initiated for the public purpose of acquisition of land for Pong Dam Reservoir. It is undisputed that the Collector vide his Award Annexure P-1 has awarded compensation for the land/ property to the claimants – respondents herein, but no award has been made qua the trees. The petitioner(s) has challenged the award of the Land Acquisition Collector in terms of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (dead) by LRs. and others, 1995(2) SCC 326. Para 24(3) of the judgment reads: “The proviso to Section 50(2) only precludes a local authority from seeking a reference but it does not deprive the local authority which feels aggrieved by the determination of the amount of compensation by the Collector or by the reference court to invoke the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution as well as the - 4 - remedies available under the L.A.Act.” Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this Court will determine the just compensation and the award of the Land Acquisition Collector is not in accord with the settled principles of law. For this purpose, this Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 as held by the Supreme Court in U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad case supra. It is also undisputed that all the claimants-respondents herein have preferred Reference Case No. 1 of 2001, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter referred to as the Act) which is pending adjudication in the Court of learned Additional District Judge (2), Kangra at Dharamsala, which by an order dated 4.12.2002 has stayed further proceedings in the matter because of the pendency of these writ petitions. One of the grounds taken in the reference petition is that the award is insufficient, inadequate and not acceptable to the petitioners. Although it has not been elaborated that this ground includes within its ambit just / fair compensation for the - 5 - land which has been acquired and which is subject matter of the award challenged in this batch of writ petitions, yet this reference specifically challenges the adequacy of compensation on all grounds including valuation of land. Instead of exercising my powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, at this stage and adjudicating upon the legality of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, it would be in the fairness of things in case the pending reference petition is disposed of by the Reference Court, with a specific issue under ground 3 as to whether the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector determines just and fair compensation for the entire acquired land and trees etc. , and whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of the market value so fixed by the Collector Obviously, when this petition will be taken up for trial, the petitioners herein for whose benefit the land has been acquired, will, in consonance with the provisions of the Act, be entitled to lead evidence. Needless to say, that the petitioners will be at liberty to adduce such evidence as they desire in support of their - 6 - contention as to whether the compensation is just and fair. A technical objection has been taken that the notifications were issued by the State Government for acquisition of land for Beas Construction Board and not for Bhakhra Beas Management Board. To obviate any technicality, the Union of India through the Secretary (Power) was ordered to be impleaded as respondent No. 1 (a) and is duly represented by learned Assistant Solicitor General of India. In these circumstances, all these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions: a) The reference petition shall be tried by the learned District Judge himself; b) He will interalia determine the just and fair compensation of the land acquired for which purpose it will be open to the petitioners and the respondents herein to lead such oral and documentary evidence, as they desire in support of their respective claims; this issue will not be - 7 - abandoned by the claimants – respondents. c) The reference Court shall also determine the other points raised by the claimants herein in the reference petition. Needless to say that the determination of just and fair compensation as also other points urged will be made by the reference Court in accordance with law; d) The learned District Judge shall proceed with expedition and the reference petition shall be disposed of not later than 31.8.2009 and no unwarranted adjournment(s) etc. shall be granted. Both the petitioners and the Union of India through Secretary (Power), which was impleaded as a party respondent on 21.12.2006 by this Court in these writ petitions shall be arrayed as respondents in the reference case No. 1/2001, pending adjudication in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kangra at - 8 - Dharamsala, for which no notice etc. will be required to be issued to them. e) The newly impleaded respondents, i.e. the petitioners and the Secretary (Power), Government of India, New Delhi will be entitled to file their pleadings before the Reference Court. They will also be given ample opportunities to lead evidence, oral and documentary in support of their respective contention(s). f) Parties shall appear before the learned District Judge on 15.7.2008. g) All interim order(s) shall stand vacated and all application(s) shall stand disposed of. June 19, 2008 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.