IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RFA No. 625 of 2012-C alongwith connected .
maters.
Date of Decision: August 11, 2017.
1. RFA No. 625 of 2012 [ENTITY]. Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & others. Respondents.
2. RFA No. 31 of 2012 [ENTITY] & others Appellants.
Versus The [ENTITY] & another.
Respondents.
3. RFA No. 32 of 2012 [ENTITY] & another Appellants.
Versus The [ENTITY] & another.
Respondents.
4. RFA No. 33 of 2012 [ENTITY] Appellant.
Versus The [ENTITY] & another.
Respondents.
[ENTITY] Appellant. Versus
The [ENTITY] & another.
Respondents.
[ENTITY] & others Appellants.
Versus The [ENTITY] & another.
Respondents.
[ENTITY] Appellant. . Versus
The [ENTITY] & another.
Respondents.
[ENTITY] Appellant. Versus
The [ENTITY] & another.
Respondents.
[ENTITY]. Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents.
[ENTITY]. Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & another Respondents.
[ENTITY]. Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents.
[ENTITY]. Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents.
[ENTITY]. Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents.
[ENTITY]. Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents.
[ENTITY]. Appellant.
Versus .
[ENTITY] & another Respondents.
[ENTITY]. Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents.
[ENTITY]. Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents.
[ENTITY]. Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents.
[ENTITY]. Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & another Respondents.
[ENTITY]. Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents.
[ENTITY]. Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents.
[ENTITY]. Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents.
[ENTITY]. Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents.
[ENTITY]. Appellant.
Versus .
[ENTITY] & others Respondents.
[ENTITY]. Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents.
[ENTITY]. Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents.
[ENTITY]. Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & another Respondents.
[ENTITY]. Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents.
[ENTITY]. Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents.
[ENTITY]. Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents.
[ENTITY]. Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & another Respondents.
[ENTITY]. Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents.
[ENTITY]. Appellant.
Versus .
[ENTITY] & others Respondents.
[ENTITY]. Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents.
[ENTITY]. Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & another Respondents.
[ENTITY]. Appellant.
Versus [ENTITY] & others r Respondents. [ENTITY]. Appellant. Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents. [ENTITY]. Appellant. Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents. Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice [ENTITY], Acting Chief Justice.
Whether approved for reporting?1No. For the Appellants: Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate, for the appellant(s)-Northern Railways.
Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate, for the appellant(s), in respective appeals.
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
For the Respondents:Mr. [ENTITY], AG with Mr.R.S. Verma & [ENTITY], Addl. AGs., for the respondent(s)-State.
Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate, for the respondents-Northern Railways, in .
respective appeals.
Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate, for private respondents, in respective appeals.
[ENTITY], Acting Chief Justice (oral).
Common award dated 31.08.2011, passed by learned District Judge, Una, H.P., in various land reference petitions, is subject matter of challenge in these appeals, so filed both by the beneficiary of the acquired land and the claimants. It is a matter of record that for the public purpose, namely, construction of Nangal-Talwara Broad Gauge railway line, land situate in Up Mohal Ram Nagar, Tehsil Amb, District Una, came to be acquired with the issuance of notification dated 24.03.2006 under [SECTION] of the [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Collector Land Acquisition, in terms of his Award No.12 of 2006/2007, determined the market value of the acquired land, category and classification wise ranging from `250/-
to `500/- per square meter. In terms of the impugned award, market value stands re-determined @ `800/- per square meter, irrespective of its category and classification. Also compensation for acquisition of the built-up structures/houses, came to be determined in the .
case of claimant [ENTITY]. As such, correctness of the award on both the counts is subject matter of consideration by this Court.
2. Commencement of acquisition proceedings and the land having been acquired, in accordance with law, is not in dispute. That the entire land stands utilized for the public purpose, namely, laying of railway track is also not in dispute, though, such fact stands established conclusively on record. The extent of total land acquired is 9-93-82 hectares.
3. Now what is that real market value of the acquired land, the Apex Court has clearly held it to be that which a willing vendor and willing vendee are ready to receive and pay.
4. The market value of a property for the purposes of [SECTION] of the Act is the price at which the property changes hands from a willing seller to a willing, but not too anxious a buyer, dealing at arms length.
Prices fetched for similar lands with similar advantages and potentialities under bona fide transactions of sale at or about the time of the preliminary notification are the usual and, indeed the best evidences of market value.
{[ENTITY] (Deceased) through his Heirs and LRs. and Others v. State of Gujarat (1989) 4 SCC 250, [PRECEDENT].
5. The market value is the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when led out in most advantageous manner, excluding any advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for which the property is compulsorily acquired. In considering market value disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy should be disregarded. The question whether a land has potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put and proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas or institutions.
The existing amenities like, water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether near about Town is developing or has prospect of development have to be taken into consideration. (Atma Singh and others v. State .
of Haryana and another (2008) 2 SCC 568).
6. In [PRECEDENT], the Apex Court held that the best method, as is well-known, would be the amount which a willing purchaser would pay to the owner of the land. In absence of any direct evidence, the court, however, may take recourse to various other known methods. Evidence admissible therefor inter alia would be judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisitions of lands made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages. Such a judgment and award in the absence of any other evidence like deed of sale, report of the expert and other relevant evidence would have only evidentiary value.
7. In [PRECEDENT], the Apex Court has held that while determining the market value of the land acquired, it has to be correctly determined and paid so that there is neither unjust enrichment on the part of the acquirer nor undue deprivation on the part of the owner.
8. It is a matter of record, as has come through .
the testimony of [ENTITY] (PW.2) that claimants referred to and relied upon sale deeds (Ex.P1, dated 28.09.1993 and Ex.P2/PA, dated 23.12.2003). Also reliance is sought upon sale deed (Ex.PB, dated 01.06.2005).
9. In terms of sale deed dated 28.09.1993 (Ex.P1) 32 square meter of land situate in Ram Nagar (Thathal) was sold for a sum of `15000/- i.e. @ `468.75 per square meter. Vide sale deed dated 23.12.2003 (Ex.P2/PA), land admeasuring 0-00-22 hectares was sold for a sum of `50,000/- which comes to `2500/- per square meter. Vide sale deed dated 01.06.2005 (Ex.PB) land admeasuring 0-01-98 hectares records sale transaction @ `505.05 square meter.
10. On the other hand, one finds the beneficiary to have placed on record four sale deeds: (i) sale deed dated 06.04.2005 (Ex.R4), whereby 0-01-58 hectares of land in Mohal Ram Nagar, Mauja Thathal came to be sold @ `167.72 per square meter; (ii) sale deed dated 12.08.2004 (Ex.R5), whereby 0-38-40 hectares of land came to be sold @ `78.12 per square meter; (iii) sale deed dated 29.09.2004 (Ex.R6), whereby 0-07-71 .
hectares of land came to be sold @ `33.72 per square meter; and (iv) sale deed dated 30.11.2004 (Ex.R7), whereby 0-04-02 hectares of land came to be sold @ `111.94 per square meter.
11. The Court below, as is evident from paragraph 25 of the judgment, rejected the sale deeds so placed on record by the beneficiary for the reason that the sale consideration was lower than what came to be awarded by the Collector Land Acquisition. Quite apparently, such sale transactions were not considered to be genuine for the purposes of determining the correct market value at which the land could be sold by a willing vender and purchased by a willing vendee. It is definitely not reflective of the true and correct market value of the acquired land.
12. Further one finds that the District Judge also did not determine the market value on the basis of sale deed (Ex.P2/PA) alone, for it pertained to only a small parcel of land. But what has been done is that mean of sale deeds (Ex.P1 and Ex.P2/PA) has been taken for determining the market value of the acquired land to be `800/- per square meter. It is in this backdrop one finds .
the reasons assigned by the authority below to be totally reasonable and logical. The finding returned cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the record.
13. Insofar as similarity of the acquired land with that of the exemplar sale deeds is concerned, there is no dispute.
14. Noticeably, r there is evidence on record establishing comparability of the acquired land with the exemplar sale deed with respect to its use, nature, character and potentiality. Both the lands are within close proximity of Nangal-Una-Amb Highway. Also it is seen that there is severance of the agricultural land belonging to the claimants. As such, taking a holistic view, it cannot be said that the amount of compensation re-determined by the Court below is on the higher side.
15. It is not in dispute before this Court, as is also evident from the material placed on record, that the entire acquired land stood fully utilized for the public purpose. Railway line stood constructed over the entire acquired land.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. It is a matter of fact that the entire land was put to public purpose. Railway line stood 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.
19. If there is evidence or admission on behalf of the claimants as to the market value commanded by the acquired land itself, the need to travel beyond the boundary of the acquired land is obviated. Instances of sale in respect of the similar land situated in the same village and/or neighbouring villages could be taken to be .
a guiding factors for determination of market value.
{[PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT].
20. The claimants are poor villagers whose land came to be acquired way back in the year 2006. They have been r litigating before various Courts for adjudication of their rights. It is high time that all litigation must come to an end at some stage. Poor villagers, who have been deprived of their land have been put to great disadvantage. They are villagers and not businessmen, who can reinvest money in the form of real estate. In some manner or other they stand deprived of their vocation. Hardship caused to them cannot be compensated in terms of money save and except that they get a fair market price.
21. One finds that the Court below has also re-
determined the market value of the built-up structure for enhancing the amount of compensation. In place of `2,13,500/- awarded by the Collector Land Acquisition, a sum of `4,00,000/- stands awarded by the Court below.
Now the enhancement is based on the correct and .
complete appreciation of the entire evidence, including testimony of an expert [ENTITY] (PW.4) a qualified Engineer, who proved reports (Ex.PW.4/A, Ex.PW 4/B & Ex.PW.4/C) evidencing the factum of value of the built-up structure to be `4,15,000/-. Significantly there is not much challenge to his testimony.
22. r It is argued that the claimants have also filed appeals/cross-objections seeking enhancement on the ground that no amount stands awarded towards severance of land. Significantly there is no evidence on this count.
23. In [PRECEDENT], Apex Court has clarified that onus to establish the money spent or damage caused to the property is on the owner, which in the instant case has not been established by any means.
What is the effect of that severance of land also remains un-established. How and in what manner the productivity of their land stands diminished, remains un-disclosed. As such, on this count no claim for award of compensation is sustainable.
24. In this view of the fact, it is held that the .
amount re-determined with respect to the acquired land, irrespective of its classification and category cannot be held to be illegal, erroneous or perverse, warranting interference by this Court. It cannot be said that the market value stands unjustifiably re-determined and that the impugned inequitable.
r award to is illegal, unfair, unjust or
25. It is a matter of record that in relation to very same acquisition proceedings, with respect to the land situate in adjoining village, this Court on similar lines affirmed the award passed by the District Judge, which the Court understand has attained finality.
26. Hence in the given facts and circumstances, the appeals are dismissed and impugned award dated 31.08.2011, passed by learned District Judge, Una, H.P., in [CASE NUMBER], titled as [ENTITY] and others Versus Land Acquisition Collector (Railways) Una and another, alongwith other connected reference petitions, being upheld.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand .
disposed of accordingly.
([ENTITY]), Acting Chief Justice August 11, 2017 (PK/[ENTITY]) r to