Compensation for property damage from construction must be based on actual expert-assessed loss, not land acquisition rates, as parameters differ and owner retains possession.

Judgment :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

CWP No.5343 of 2024

By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:-

“a. That the assessment of compensation as determined by the Committee in its meeting held on 22-11-2023 (Annexure P-5) may be quashed and set aside.

b. That respondent no.1 & 2 may be directed to re-assess the alleged damages as per the applicable norms under the H.P. State Disaster Management and Relief Manual and re-verify the exact extent of damage to land due to road construction.

c. That the respondent no.1 may be directed to consider the objections raised by the petitioner while assessing the damages.”

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Committee, headed by Deputy Commissioner, Solan, H.P., which undertook the assessment of damages to the private land of the private respondents herein, which has recommended and directed that the land owners should be paid compensation qua damage to their land as per rate adopted in Award No.7, dated 29.02.2016, i.e. Rs.2,381/- per square meter. The total compensation calculated in terms of the said Minutes is to the tune of Rs.1,03,81,160/-.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the documents appended with the petition and by referring to Annexure P-2, i.e. Notification dated 08.06.2020, he submitted that the Governor of Himachal Pradesh was pleased to constitute the Committees to resolve and sort out the issues including issues of assessing the damage occurred to private land, buildings and structures beyond RoW due to construction of Four laning Projects of NHAI in the State of Himachal Pradesh. He submitted that such a Committee constituted for District Solan, undertook the assessment of damage caused to the property of the private respondents herein, which property was beyond RoW and in terms of the impugned recommendations, an amount of Rs.1,03,81,160/- has been ordered to be paid as compensation by assessing the damage in terms of the rate adopted in Award No.7, which Award related to the acquisition of land.

4. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the methodology adopted by the Committee in assessing the damage to be paid to the private respondents is completely arbitrary and unjustifiable in law. He submitted that the Committee erred in not appreciating that there is a substantive difference in compensating a land owner whose land has been acquired for a particular Project and compensating a land owner whose land might have been damaged in the course of the construction of a particular Project. He submitted that in the first case, the owner of the land loses the ownership over the property and it is in lieu thereof that the compensation is statutory in nature. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that because in the present case, the formula that has been adopted by the Committee is perverse and as it has not been appreciated that it is public money which has to be now dolled out to the petitioner, therefore, as the impugned recommendations are not sustainable in the eyes of law, the same be quashed and set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the private respondents submitted that there is no perversity in the recommendations of the Committee, for the reason that the Committee went into the aspect of the damage to the property in terms of the Minutes which reasoning is explicit and reasoned. He submitted that in light of the fact that the land of the private respondents has been rendered useless and the same is not now in a position to be put to a