High Court · 2025

Mr. M.K. Chand, learned counsel. Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned St anding Counsel. Mr. Manoj Kum ar, learned St anding Counsel. JUD GM EN T : ( p e r M r . G. N a r e n d a r , C.J.) Lear ned counsel for t he aggrieved part y subm it s t hat he want s t he com pensat ion t o be paid by t he St at e Governm ent and not t he THDC.

3. I n t hat view, THDC st ands absolved. I n our consider ed opinion, t he inst ant writ pet it ion is highly m isconceived. The issue r egarding t he com pensat ion/ rehabilit at ion has been dealt wit h by t his Court in t he case of N .D . Ja y a l & a n o t h e r v s. Un i o n o f I n d i a , W r i t Pe t i t i o n ( M / B) N o .1 2 8 7 o f 2 0 0 3 , which has received a seal of approval at t he hands of t he Hon’ble Apex Court . The inst ant pet it ion by t he so- called aggrieved per son does not disclose as t o w hat his grievance is. The grievance appear s t o be wit h r egard t o t he “ hand” / aut horit y / agency t hat ought t o disburse t he benefit s/ 1 com pensat ion under t he schem e. I t is not for t he claim ant / aggrieved person/ affect ed part y t o dict at e as t o which “ hand” / aut horit y / agency, t o handover t he com pensat ion or benefit s of any rehabilit at ion schem e. I t is set t led law t hat all am ount s of com pensat ion/ all policies regarding any rehabilit at ion will have t o be sour ced by t he beneficiar y, but st rangely, t here is an opposit ion for t he beneficiar y t o pay t he am ount s r egarding t he com pensat ion det erm ined or pay t he ex penses for im kplem ent ing any schem e. I t is t he beneficiar y w ho has t o dig int o his pocket t o sat isfy t hese affect ed/ aggrieved/ claim ant s. Despit e t his fact t he claim t hat t he “ beneficiary” should not handle t he sam e, is t o st at e t he least , ast ounding. I t is not t hat t he com pensat ion or t he im plem ent at ions of t he schem es are at t he choice of t he beneficiary. The Land Acquisit ion Act det erm ines t he m et hod of com put ing t he com pensat ion, t he policy wit h r egar d t o any incent ive by way of r ehabilit at ion schem e is by t he acquiring body and t he beneficiary is required only t o im plem ent t he sam e.

4. This pet it ion appears t o be a cloak and dagger exer cise and appears t o be at t he inst ance of vest ed int erest s w ho desire t he st at us quo t o cont inue in order t o reap t he benefit s which, ot herwise, t hey would not be ent it led t o. 2

5. The present pet it ion, now here, advances t he cause of t he per son r eally affect ed or aggrieved by t he acquisit ion and t ransfer of t he land for t he proj ect .

6. The inst ant pet it ion is dism issed wit h cost s of Rs.1.00 Lakh.

7. Aft er t he im posit ion of cost s, learned counsel for t he pet it ioner pleads for waiver of t he cost s on t he ground t hat t he pet it ioner is not in a financial condit ion t o pay t he sam e.

8. Though, w e are not inclined t o t ake t he st at em ent t hat t he inst ant pet it ion is filed bonafide, yet , we defer t he execut ion of t he order im posing cost s, so t hat it m ay be a war ning bell t o anyone w ho t ries t o m islead t his Court and t ake undue advant age of t he sit uat ion. I m posit ion of cost s is suspended.

9. I n t he event , t he pet it ioner again t ries t o file such frivolous pet it ion, t hen t he Regist ry shall init iat e st eps t o recover t his cost s also. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ G. N A REN DA R, C.J. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ SUBH A SH UPA D H YA Y, J. Dat ed: 23 rd Sept em ber, 2025 NI SHANT 3