2025 landslide in Shimla Act of God, NHAI tells NGT, rejects compensation claim

The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) has told the National Green Tribunal (NGT) that it is not liable to pay compensation to owners of agricultural land as the May 2025 landslide that occurred in Shimla was an 'Act of God.'.

The NHAI submitted its reply against the plea filed in January, claiming that the heavy construction work being undertaken by the authority and its concessionaire, without properly strengthening a slope, had damaged agricultural land in Shimla rural tehsil, causing landslides.

The plea was filed by some land owners against the NHAI and its agencies involved in widening a road for a four-lane project in Shakral village to Dhalli (Kaithlighat-Dhalli Section of NH-5).

In response to the plea, the NGT had sought replies from the authorities.

In its reply or counter-affidavit dated May 18, the NHAI said that the applicants highlighted an incident that occurred on May 25 when a retaining wall constructed by its agency was damaged.

''The incident was caused solely due to natural calamity (Act of God/Vis Major). Heavy rainfall occurred in Himachal Pradesh from late May 2025 onwards, triggering widespread and large-scale landslides, including in areas where no construction or project of any nature was being undertaken,'' the reply said.

It said that the incident, being an Act of God, was supported by the IMD report and the state government's disaster declaration dated September 1, 2025.

On the alleged damage to 440 trees in a plot, a loss of over Rs 32.3 lakh claimed, the NHAI urged the SDM Shimla (Rural) to ask the Horticulture department to re-examine its report and submit a fresh field-based report.

The NHAI said that compensation, if any, cannot be based on the erroneous and inflated assessment of the horticulture department.

''The matter requires proper re-assessment before any compensation is determined … In any case, the compensation payable (if any at all, given that the damage was due to natural calamity) shall be determined in accordance with applicable law,'' it said.

The NHAI said its project concessionaire, M/s Gawar Shimla Highway Pvt Ltd, had also conducted its own assessment of the loss and claimed that the horticulture department's damage assessment report was ''incorrect'' as only around 40 apple trees existed on the affected land.

The counter-affidavit also rejected the claim for damage to the land, saying it was in the process of being acquired for the highway project under the National Highways Act, for which a gazette notification had been issued on January 15 this year.

''Upon finalisation of the award, the compensation shall be duly disbursed to the entitled land owners in accordance with law,'' the reply said.

It said that the applicants sought environmental compensation without establishing ''any specific violation of the conditions of environmental clearance or forest clearance by NHAI/concessionaire; any act or omission on the part of NHAI/concessionaire that contributed to or caused the landslide.''.

According to the reply, NHAI was not liable for the alleged damage when it was caused solely and exclusively by an extraordinary natural event which could not have been reasonably anticipated or prevented by human foresight, care and skill.

''It is no more res integra that the 'no-fault' or 'strict liability' principle under environmental law applies to 'hazardous activities' of industry. Highway construction, which is a public infrastructure project undertaken with all requisite approvals, is sustainable development, and it does not fall within the category of hazardous activities attracting absolute liability in the absence of any negligence,'' the reply said.

It said the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle are triggered only where there is actual environmental damage caused by or attributable to a person's act or omission.

''Where the damage is caused solely by an Act of God or natural calamity, these principles cannot be invoked to fasten liability on NHAI,'' the reply said.

It sought the tribunal's directions to dismiss the landowners' application, arguing it was without merit and did not raise any substantial environmental question.

It also requested the NGT to direct the authorities to take cognisance of the obstruction being caused by the applicants or locals in restoration work.

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)