High Court of Himachal Pradesh · 2008

Smt. Ruheni alias Hasni and others (cid:133)..Respondents. Coram The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. This appeal has been preferred by the National Hydro Electric Power Corporation against the judgment of the learned District Judge, passed in the reference petitions instituted by the claimants-respondents. Facts regarding the issuance of the notification under Section 4 and subsequent compliance of the provisions of the Land 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are not in dispute. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector is not disputed. It is not disputed before me that the facts in the present case are similar to those which were considered in R.F.A. No. 11 of 1998, which was decided along with other connected petitions on 7.8.2007(including cross-objections). In those appeals also, the land had been acquired by the petitioner for the purpose of establishing a Hydro Electric Project. A vast chunk of land had been acquired by the appellant for the purpose of establishing Hydro Electric Project. The contentions of law raised by the appellant in this appeal are identical to those which were considered and disposed of by a detailed judgment in RFA No. 11/98. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it necessary to discuss in detail the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 11/98. Cross Objection No. 156/1998. Dismissed in view of the judgment passed in RFA No. 27th February,2008 (cm) (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge.