IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

CWP Nos.2207, 2208, 2209, 2211 of 2017, 332, 333 & 509 of 2019.

Decided on: 28th May, 2019 CWP No. 2207 of 2017 Sant Ram & Others ……Petitioners.

Versus NTPC & Another .…Respondents.

CWP No. 2208 of 2017 Prem Lal & Others ……Petitioners.

Versus NTPC & Another .…Respondents.

CWP No. 2209 of 2017 Sheela & Others ……Petitioners.

Versus NTPC & Another .…Respondents.

CWP No. 2211 of 2017 Prem Lal & Another ……Petitioners.

Versus NTPC & Another .…Respondents.

CWP No. 332 of 2019 Dharam Chand & Another ……Petitioners.

Versus NTPC & Another .…Respondents.

CWP No. 333 of 2019 Sita Ram ……Petitioner.

Versus NTPC & Another .…Respondents.

CWP No. 509 of 2019 Ram Dass ……Petitioner.

Versus NTPC & Another .…Respondents.

Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Acting Chief Justice.

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Virender Thakur, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr.Jagdish Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.S. Guleria, Dy.

A.G., for respondent No.2.

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, ACJ. (oral).

Heard.

2. We propose to dispose of all the writ petitions by this common judgment as the facts of

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

all the cases are identical and the points in issue are also same and similar. Even the relief claimed is also identical.

3. In three writ petitions registered as CWP Nos.332, 333 and 509 of 2019, the respondents have not filed the reoply. This aspect of the matter has been noted by us in our order passed in these writ petitions yesterday on

27.5.2019, which reads as follows:

“ Short afÏdavit/reply has not been filed despite opportunity granted. In our opinion, reply is not required as the points raised in these writ petitions are identical to the one in CWP No. 2207 of 2017, titled Sant Ram & Others versus NTPC & another and its connected matters, in which we have heard the arguments today at length and adjourned the same for continuation tomorrow on 28th May, 2019. Therefore, these writ petitions be also listed therewith. Name of Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate learned counsel representing respondent No.1 be reflected in the cause list.”

4. Therefore, when the reply has been filed in the remaining four writ petitions coupled with the factum of the points in issue are identical in all the writ petitions and even the petitioners are either co-sharers or similarly situated persons, it is for this reason that the reply was not insisted to be filed by the respondents. Otherwise also, the Collector, respondent No.2, shall determine the enhanced amount of compensation on the basis of the material to be placed on record by the parties on both sides and after holding inquiry as envisaged under Section 28-A of the Act and not on the basis of the submissions made in the writ petitions alone.

5. The records reveal that the co- sharers/similarly situated persons of the petitioners in these writ petitions have approached the reference Court below by way of filing an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for redetermination of the compensation. The reference Court below after holding full trial and affording opportunity of being heard to the parties has determined the market value of the acquired land @`5,00,000/- per bigha irrespective of its nature and classification. The petitioners, however, have neither made a reference at an appropriate stage nor approached the competent authority under Section 28-A of the Act within the stipulated period, after the reference Court below has passed the award and enhanced the compensation. The explanation for their failure to do so as forth coming is that they are illiterate having no knowledge of legal intricacies. It is for this reasons they allegedly failed to approach the authority below under Section 28-A of the Act