HC directs SJVNL to pay solatium on land for Luhri hydroelectric project within three months

Shimla, Oct 15

Himachal Pradesh High Court has directed SJVN Limited (SJVNL) to pay solatium to landowners whose properties were purchased for the construction of the Luhri Hydroelectric Project, holding that the company cannot deny statutory benefits merely because the land was purchased through negotiations rather than acquired through formal proceedings.

Justice Sandeep Sharma, while allowing a batch of 19 writ petitions on October 12, directed SJVNL to pay solatium on the land within three months, along with interest and additional compensation under Sections 30(1), 30(3) and 80 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

The petitions were filed by landowners from villages including Nirath and Badrash in Rampur subdivision of Shimla district. Their land was purchased for the 210-MW Luhri Hydroelectric Project at negotiated rates approved by the state government in March 2020. Although the landowners received the agreed compensation, they were denied solatium on the land, even as solatium had been paid for certain structures standing on the properties.

SJVNL opposed the claim, arguing that no formal land acquisition award had been passed by the Collector and, therefore, the statutory provision for solatium was not applicable. The company also contended that the negotiated arrangement covered compensation for structures but not the land itself.

Rejecting the argument, the court observed that the state government had expressly required compliance with the mandatory provisions of the 2013 Act while approving the negotiated purchase of land. SJVNL had also undertaken to extend the compensation and rehabilitation benefits prescribed under the legislation.

The court held that the company could not evade its obligations simply because it had opted for direct purchase instead of formal acquisition. It further noted that the landowners had no real alternative, as the land could otherwise have been acquired through the state government.

The court relied on the principle of promissory estoppel, holding that commitments made by the government and relied upon by citizens could not be disregarded without lawful justification.

About the Author

himachaleditor

Editor

View All Posts