IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision Nos. 469 of 2002 and 470 of 2002. Date of decision : 10.09.2009 CR No. 469 of 2002 Chairman, BBMB and another …Petitioners. Versus Chuhru Ram and others. …Respondents CR No. 470 of 2002 Chairman, BBMB and another …Petitioners. Versus Smt. Nauli and others. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. N.K.Sood, Advocate. For the Respondent 1: Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondent No.3.: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) These two Revision Petitions are being disposed of by one order since the facts are similar and the legal point involved is identical. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner herein i.e. Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) is running and maintaining the Beas Satluj Link Project (BSL). The waters of the river Beas have been channelised at Pandoh and diverted from Pandoh to Slapper through a tunnel inside a mountain. From 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 Pandoh to Baggi the water is taken through a tunnel. From Baggi to Sundernagar there is an open channel and from Sundernagar to Slapper water is again taken through a tunnel. At Sundernagar a balancing reservoir has been built so that the level of water at Sundernagar is maintained at a particular level to ensure provision of adequate supply of water for the generation of electricity at Dehar Power House at Slapper. Reservoir at Sundernagar is an artificial reservoir and silt is carried into the reservoir. The BBMB dredges the silt from the reservoir and this silt is deposited into the Suketi Khud, which is a tributary of the river Beas. Respondents filed virtually identical plaints before the learned Sub Judge, Sundernagar. They claimed that the BBMB had not only deposited the silt in the Khud but had also deposited the silt on their land. It was also alleged that due to the depositing of the silt in Suketi Khud the irrigation channels and kuhals were being blocked and the area had been rendered barren. The decree prayed for was for restoration of the suit land, perpetual injunction restraining the present petitioner from dredging out and depositing the silt and sand in the Suketi Khud and preliminary decree for assessment of damages. These suits were dismissed by the learned trial Court. Appeals were filed in the Court of the learned District Judge, Mandi. The said appeals were disposed of by identical orders passed on 17.09.1999. On the suggestion of the Appellate Court, the parties agreed to compromise the matter and the matter was referred to the District Collector, Mandi to assess the damages, if any, suffered 3 by the plaintiff from 29.1.1991 till date and it was ordered that these damages as assessed by the District Collector would be paid to the original plaintiffs. The Collector was directed to assess the damages in accordance with law. It appears that the Collector delegated this power to the SDM, who further took reports from the field staff and initially assessed the damages in respect of the plaintiff Chuhru Ram to the extent of Rs.1,49,039/- and in respect of Bhagat Ram the damages were assessed at Rs.91,364/-. It appears that this assessment was not done in the presence of the parties. Thereafter, both the parties were called and then assessment of damages was made only in respect of the land on which silt had been deposited. Damages were assessed at Rs.66,000/- in respect of the land of Chuhru and Rs.69,000/- in respect of the land of Bhagat Ram. Thereafter, again the land was inspected for a third time and in addition to the land on which silt had been deposited the other land which had suffered damage was also inspected and damages assessed against. The assessment was enhanced to Rs.1,60,469/- in respect of Chuhru Ram and Rs.91,121/- in respect of Bhagat Ram. This report was sent to the Collector who then in terms of the order passed by the learned District Judge informed the parties about the same. Thereafter, execution petitions were filed before the Executing Court and the Executing Court directed the petitioners to pay this amount. This has given rise to the present Revision Petitions. 4 I have heard Shri N.K.Sood, learned counsel for the BBMB and Shri Rakesh Jaswal, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of respondents. The main contentions of Shri N.K.Sood, are as follows:- 1. That the Collector has not assessed the damages in terms of the order of the learned District Judge and has delegated the powers to the SDM, which he could not have done. 2. That the assessment is not proper. He submits that the assessment was only to be made in respect of the land which was covered by silt. 3. That even if other land was damaged the damages could not be held directly attributable to the BBMB. 4. It is lastly contended that Court fee has not been paid and therefore the assessed amount cannot be ordered to be paid. As far as the first contention is concerned, it would be pertinent to mention that no doubt the District Judge has directed the Collector to assess the damages. However, it has nowhere been directed that the Collector himself will assess the damages. Obviously, the Collector has to assess the damages on the basis of the material to be collected by the filed staff. He thereafter deputed the SDM who in turn collected material from the field staff. This report has been accepted by the Collector and forwarded to the parties and therefore it is deemed to be the report of the Collector. As far as the second ground is concerned, as pointed out above, the plaintiffs had not only claimed restoration of the land but also damages in respect of the other losses suffered by them 5 due to the deposit of silt in and around. Therefore, the consent order did not limit the assessment of damages only to the land over which silt was deposited. Therefore, the assessment of damages was required to be made in respect of all the lands of the plaintiffs which were damaged due to the activities of the BBMB. As far as the third contention is concerned, the submission of Shri Naresh Kumar Sood, is that in the report it is mentioned that some of the land of the respondents which was not covered by silt has suffered damages because of lack of irrigation facilities, falling water table etc. The level of Suketi Khud going down and change in the water course of the Suketi Khud and also on account of the change in the nature of the soil. He urges that these damages are not attributable to any action on behalf of the BBMB. This contention cannot be accepted. In the report itself, it is clearly mentioned that the land of the plaintiffs has been affected due to the aforesaid five reasons, which are attributable to the action of the BBMB. When silt is deposited in the Khud obviously the Khud will change its course. If silt is deposited in the land the land became higher then the Khud. In any event, these were matters which the parties agreed to refer to the Collector. Once the Collector has made a decision then in terms of the decree which was passed the petitioner was bound to obey the said order and pay the damages assessed. The last contention has been raised only to be rejected. Payment of Court fees is an issue between the State and the litigants. The petitioner by consent agreed to authorize the 6 Collector to assess the damages. Once they have authorized the Collector to assess the damages now on technical grounds they cannot be permitted to disobey the said report. The order of the Executing Court is accordingly upheld. The amounts were assessed in the year 2001. The petitioners on one pretext or the other have failed to deposit the said amount. Therefore, I direct that the petitioners shall deposit the aforesaid amount before the Executing Court within 8 weeks from today failing which they shall also be liable to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum. It is made clear that any observation made in this case is restricted to the facts of the present case. September 10, 2009 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.