A public authority cannot retain the benefit of a person's property without paying him the enhanced compensation as per the assurance given by it.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

Would preface this judgment by referring to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Noida Entrepreneurs Association vs. Noida and others, (2011) 6 SCC 508, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

"Power vested by the State in a public authority should be viewed as a trust coupled with duty to be exercised in large public and social interest. Power is to be exercised strictly adhering to the statutory provisions and fact situation of a case. "Public authorities cannot play fast and loose with the powers vested in them." A decision taken in an arbitrary manner contradicts the principle of legitimate expectation. An authority is under a legal obligation to exercise the power reasonably and in good faith to effectuate the purpose for which power stood conferred. In this context, "in good faith" means "for legitimate reasons." It must be exercised bona fide for the purpose and for none other.

2. Similar sentiments have been expressed earlier and later to this decision and some of which shall be referred to during the course of this judgment.

3. Adverting to the facts, it would be noticed that the land of the petitioner was acquired by the Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. (for short 'HPPCL) by way of negotiation vide sale deed dated 24.09.2009. The purpose of acquisition was for the construction of Renukaji Dam Project. Immediately after the execution of the sale deed the respondent-HPPCL issued a certificate of assurance in favour of the petitioner agreeing therein that in case the negotiated rates for the land being acquired for dam and reservoir area (sub mergence area) are enhanced the same rate would be paid to him. It was further stated in the assurance certificate that this undertaking was being given to ensure that those persons who come forward for sale of land voluntarily are not disadvantaged.

4. It is not in dispute that subsequently the respondents No. 2 to 5 acquired the land of other persons/land owners of the same area for same purpose wherein such persons were granted enhanced amount of compensation. As per award dated 23.08.2012, the petitioner called upon the respondents to pay the enhanced amount vide notice dated 27.10.2014 but the said notice was not replied constraining the petitioner to file the instant petition, wherein he has claimed the following substantive reliefs:-

1. That the respondents No. 1 to 3 may kindly be directed to comply the undertaking Annexure P-1, direction P-3 and pay the amount of enhanced compensation with up to date interest, having become due to be paid to the petitioner by the respondents on the basis of award No. 658, dated 23.08.2012 and supplementary award in main award No. 658, dated 06.03.2013 passed by respondent No. 4 in the interest of justice.

2. That the respondents No. 1 to 3 may kindly be directed to pay the amount of enhanced compensation alongwith 30% solatium and additional amount under Section 23 (1A) of the Land Acquisition Act at the rate of 12% from 30.07.2009 till realization of the same.

5. In the reply filed by the respondents No. 2 to 5, it was averred that the land owned by the petitioner was purchased by the replying respondents in the year 2009 through negotiated rate of Rs.50,000/- per bigha for Nakabil, Gair Mumkin and Nakabil Charand types of land. Subsequently on 30.09.2009, the negotiated rates for the above mentioned types of land was enhanced to Rs.75,000/- per bigha and in order to honour the assurance given by the replying respondents, the differential amount of negotiated rate was paid to the petitioner vide cheque No. 675434, dated 01.12.2009, which was duly received by the petitioner. Lastly, it was stated that petitioner himself willingly sold the land to the replying-respondents and having thus received consideration for the sold land in the year 2009 as per negotiated rates appr