IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RFA No. 166 of 2011 alongwith connected appeals.
Date of Decision: May 4, 2018
1. RFA No.166 of 2011 & CO No.368 of 2011 [ENTITY] through its General Manager, New Delhi.
Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents.
2. RFA No.154 of 2011 [ENTITY] through its General Manager, New Delhi.
Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents.
3. [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] through its General Manager, New Delhi.
Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents.
[ENTITY] through its General Manager, New Delhi.
Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & another Respondents.
[ENTITY] through its General Manager, New Delhi.
Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents.
[ENTITY] through its General Manager, New Delhi.
Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents.
[ENTITY] through its General Manager, New Delhi.
Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents.
8. RFA No.160 of 2011 & CO No.366 of 2011 [ENTITY] through its General Manager, New Delhi.
Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents.
[ENTITY] through its General Manager, New Delhi.
Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents.
10. RFA No.162 of 2011& CO No.367 of 2011 [ENTITY] through its General Manager, New Delhi.
Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents.
[ENTITY] through its General Manager, New Delhi.
Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents.
[ENTITY] through its General Manager, New Delhi.
Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents.
[ENTITY] through its General Manager, New Delhi.
Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents.
[ENTITY] through its General Manager, New Delhi.
Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents.
[ENTITY] through its General Manager, New Delhi.
Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents.
16. RFA No.169 of 2011 & CO No.369 of 2011 [ENTITY] through its General Manager, New Delhi.
Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents.
[ENTITY] through its General Manager, New Delhi.
Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice [ENTITY], Acting Chief Justice. Whether approved for reporting?1No.
For the Appellant: Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate, for the [ENTITY]/Non-Objector.
For the Respondents: M/s [ENTITY], [ENTITY], Sr.Advocates with Mr.[ENTITY]
Mr.[ENTITY], Mr.[ENTITY], Mr.[ENTITY] & Mr.[ENTITY], Advocates, for the respective private respondents/Cross-Objectors.
Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate General with Ms.[ENTITY], Deputy Advocate General, for respondent/State- Non Objector.
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
[ENTITY], ACJ (oral) [CASE NUMBER] in [CASE NUMBER] For the reasons set out in the application, the same .
is allowed and name of respondent No.4, Sh.[ENTITY], is directed to be deleted from the array of memo of parties. Registry is directed to carryout necessary corrections in the Memo of parties. Application stands disposed of.
CMP(M) Nos.3 & 4 of 2012 in [CASE NUMBER] For the reasons set out in the applications, after condoning delay in filing the application for bringing on record the LRs of deceased respondent No.2, [ENTITY], his name is directed to be substituted with that of his LRs as mentioned in the application. Registry is directed to carryout necessary corrections in the Memo of parties. Applications stand disposed of.
[CASE NUMBER] in [CASE NUMBER] For the reasons set out in the application, the same is allowed and name of respondent No.4, Sh.[ENTITY], is directed to be deleted from the array of memo of parties. Registry is directed to carryout necessary corrections in the Memo of parties. Application stands disposed of.
[CASE NUMBER] in [CASE NUMBER] For the reasons set out in the applications, after condoning delay in filing the application for bringing on record .
the LRs of deceased respondent No.2, 3, 23 & 24 their names are directed to be substituted with that of their LRs as mentioned in the application(s). Registry is directed to carryout necessary corrections in the Memo of parties.
Applications stand disposed of.
[CASE NUMBER] in [CASE NUMBER] of For the reasons set out in the applications, after condoning delay in filing the application for bringing on record the LRs of deceased respondent No.4, [ENTITY], his name is directed to be substituted with that of his LRs as mentioned in the application. Registry is directed to carryout necessary corrections in the Memo of parties. Applications stand disposed of.
[CASE NUMBER] of In all these appeals, so filed under [SECTION] of the [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the beneficiary(ies) of the acquisition proceedings have assailed the common award dated 19.10.2010, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Una, District Una, H.P., in [CASE NUMBER], titled as Sh.[ENTITY] vs. The Land Acquisition Collector, Railways, Una, H.P. & others, alongwith other reference petitions.
2. In terms of the impugned award, the Reference Court by enhancing the amount of compensation has uniformly awarded `1,00,000/- per kanal regardless of classification and category of the land to all the claimants.
3. The basis for enhancement is copy of the Award dated 01.12.1998 (Ex.P-1), passed by District Judge, Una, in [CASE NUMBER], titled as [PRECEDENT], alongwith other reference cases, wherein amount stands awarded @ `1,44,000/- per kanal.
4. In the instant cases, acquisition proceedings commenced with the publication of notification under [SECTION] of the Act on 31.10.2000. The Collector Land Acquisition passed his award No.8, dated 19.09.2001, awarding different rates ranging from `1211-37 paisa to `18,030-76 paisa per kanal, depending upon the classification and category of the land.
5. Before this Court, it is not in dispute that entire acquired land was fully utilized for public purpose, namely, construction of Una-Talwara Broad-gauge Railway line.
6. The Reference Court has discarded the evidence led by the claimants, in the shape of sale deeds (Ex.PW.1/A, dated 18.09.2000, Ex.PW.1/B, dated 09.11.1990 & Ex.PW.1/C, .
dated 03.04.2007) in support of their claim for award of compensation @ `10,00,000/- per kanal. Equally sale deeds (Ex.R-1, dated 09.12.1998, Ex.R-2, dated 22.03.1990 & Ex.R-
3, dated 31.05.1999) were produced by the beneficiary stand discarded.
7. What weighed with the Reference Court was the Award (Ex.P-1), dated 01.12.1998, passed by learned District Judge, Una, wherein higher compensation stood paid.
Considering the time gap of two years and the fact that claimants' land was not identical, but almost similarly situated, with that of the claimants, in the Reference Award, this Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court rightly relied upon the award and carried out deduction to the extent of `44,000/-. Award (Ex.P-1) pertains to village Ajnoli.
Whereas, the instant land falls within village Dangoli, an adjoining village.
8. Now it is a settled principle of law that if the entire land is put for a public use and no area is left out for carrying out any developmental activity, then the claimants are entitled for compensation for the entire acquired land, at uniform rates, regardless of its categorization.
9. Relying upon the decision rendered by the Apex .
Court in [PRECEDENT], Collector Land Acquisition, uniformly determined the market value of the acquired land.
It is not in dispute that the entire acquired land stands fully utilized for the public purpose. As such, ratio of law laid down in [PRECEDENT] (supra), stands correctly applied to the attending facts.
10. In [PRECEDENT], while determining the compensation for acquisition of land pertaining to five different villages, the Apex Court uniformly awarded a sum of ` 40,000/- per acre, irrespective of the classification and the category of land.
11. Further, in [PRECEDENT] while dealing with the case where the land was acquired for laying a Railway line, the Court held that no deduction by way of development charges was permissible as there was no question of any development thereof.
12. Similar view stands taken by this Court in [PRECEDENT] and later on in H.P. Housing Board vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. 2003(3) [CASE NUMBER], which judgment has attained finality as [CASE NUMBER] titled as [PRECEDENT]
[ENTITY] (D) by LRs & Others, filed by the H.P. Housing Board came to be dismissed by the Apex Court on 16.8.2004.
13. This judgment was subsequently referred to and relied upon by this Court in [PRECEDENT] and relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in [PRECEDENT] (supra), wherein the market value of the land under acquisition, situated in five different villages was assessed uniformly, irrespective of its nature and quality, also awarded compensation on uniform rates.
14. It is a matter of fact that the entire land was put to public purpose. Broad-gauge railway line constructed thereupon. It was used for only one purpose and as such there cannot be any error in uniform determination of the market value of the acquired land.
15. Under these circumstances, one finds that the Reference Court to have correctly applied the principles in enhancing the amount of compensation and uniformly awarding the same to all the claimants regardless of classification and category of land.
16. The evidence led by the claimants cannot be said to be establishing the correct market value, for the exemplar sale deeds were not only of small parcel of land, but pertain to .
the period subsequent to passing of the award and/or are of small parcels of land with no evidence of similarity.
17. Hence, in the given facts and circumstances, no interference is warranted. It cannot be said that the findings returned by the Reference Court are perverse, illegal or erroneous. As such, present appeals as also the cross-
objections stand dismissed, so also pending application(s), if any.
([ENTITY]), May 4, 2018 Acting Chief Justice. ([ENTITY])