1. 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 any use by the private respondents, the compensation was determined by applying a just and reasonable formula by the Committee. Learned Counsel further submitted that compensation at the rate of Rs.2,381/- per square meter has been recommended in terms of Award No.7, dated 29.02.2016, but all benefits which are accruable to the owner of the land whose land is acquired have not been given to the private respondents, which justifies the recommendation, because the Committee was aware of the fact that it was not compensating a person for acquisition of land, but only for the damages which were caused to the property of such person. Accordingly, he submitted that as there is no perversity in the recommendations, the petition be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and also learned Counsel for the private respondents. Learned Additional Advocate General also assisted the Court on the issue, as to whether the compensation for damage caused to the property on account of construction work carried out by NHAI can be granted by applying the rates as are payable for the acquisition of land or not.

7. This Court is of the considered view that whenever the property of an individual is damaged on account of the activity of a project proponent, be it NHAI, then such a party obviously has to be compensated. The compensation has to be on the basis of the actual loss which is there to the property of the party and the same cannot be on conjecture and surmises.

8. It is not as if, there is none available in the Country to assess the actual loss which might have been caused to the property in a situation with which this Court is faced in the present case.

9. Therefore, applying a hypothetical formula of awarding compensation on the basis of the rate determined in an Award, which Award relates to compensating a land owner for acquisition of land, is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

10. For the purpose of compensating a land owner whose land is being acquired for a project, the parameters are totally different and there are more than one components which have to be taken into consideration by the Competent Court or the Competent Authority while granting compensation. Same formula cannot be adopted while determining the damages to which a person may be entitled to for loss caused to property on account of some acts of commission and omission of a project proponent. In such like cases the compensation that has to be awarded to the party has to be realistic and on the basis of the actual assessment of loss by a competent body. It has to be appreciated that the owner continuous to be owner in possession of the property and he can use the same for whatever purpose he may choose.

11. Therefore, in light of above observations, as this Court is of the considered view that the Committee erred in granting compensation to the private respondents herein by adopting the rate that was paid to those persons whose land was acquired for the purpose of the construction of the Project, this petition succeeds. Annexure P-5, i.e. Minutes of the Meeting, dated 22.11.2023 is quashed and set aside. The Committee is directed to re-hear the case and take a fresh call on the compensation to which the private respondents are entitled to. In order to assess the actual damage that has been caused to the property of the private respondents, it will be specifically inquired into through experts and reflected in the Minutes, as to whether the property can be put to use after carrying out certain remedial measures or not, or whether the property indeed has been rendered useless for all times to come. The compensation be got assessed by the Committee by taking the assistance of such experts as the Committee may deem fit. Let needful be done expeditiously by the Committee and fresh Minutes be prepared on or before 28.02.2026. It is clarified that as far as the assessment of the value of trees is concerned, the Committee need not dwell upon the said issue afresh and the compensation as has been assessed qua the trees is upheld in favour of land owners.

12. The petition stands disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.

CWP No.5701 of 2024

13. This petition is disposed of in light of the judgment delivered in CWP No.5343 of 2024. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.