UNION OF INDIA (UOI) Vs. KHAZANA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Civil Writ Petitions (CWPs No. 372, 373, 374, 375, 376 and 377 of 1997) and Civil Revision Petitions (CRs No. 291, 292, 293, 294,295 and 296 of 1997) involve common question of law and fact, as such, these are being disposed of by a common judgment. The Petitioners in the writ petitions, who are Respondents in the civil revision petitions, will be referred to as 'authorities', whereas, the Respondents in the writ petitions, who are Petitioners in the revision petitions, as 'claimants'. The authorities in their writ petitions have prayed for setting aside the awards dated 29.4.1997 passed by District Judge, Bilaspur and for confirming the compensation assessed by the District Horticulture Officer, Bilaspur, which was approved by the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur with enhancement to the extent of 30%. On the other hand, in the revision petitions the claimants have prayed for enhancement of the compensation awarded to them by the impugned awards.

(2.) IN the impugned awards the District Judge has held that the claimants "should be paid at least 6 times more in respect of fruit trees other than the Lichi and 12 times in respect of Lichi trees which has been assessed by RW -2 in his report Ext. RW -1/A." The claimants are also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 1st October, 1989 till the date of payment of compensation. The impugned awards have been passed by the District Judge in six separate Land References No. 4 to 1992, 5 of 1992, 2 of 1992, 3 of 1992, 6 of 1992 and 1 of 1992 filed by the claimants under Section 16(3) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter called the 'Telegraph Act') read with Section 51 of Indian Electricity Act (hereinafter called the 'Electricity Act').

(3.) FEELING aggrieved, the claimants filed petitions under Section 19 read with Section 52 of the Electricity Act before the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, who vide his order dated 21.8.1991 appointed the Joint Secretary (Law) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh as Arbitrator for assessment of the compensation. The Arbitrator vide his order dated 26.3.1992 sent the matter back to the State Government without answering the reference holding that he had no jurisdiction in the matter and the remedy available to the claimants was to file reference petitions under Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act for determining the compensation due and payable to them. It was in this background that the reference petitions were filed by the claimants before the District Judge, Bilaspur.