IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA . RFA No. 316 of 2017 a/w RFAs No. 263 to 266 of 2017, 317 to 332 of 2017, 334 to 347 of 2017. Reserved on : 17.09.2018 Decided on : 01.11.2018 1. RFA No. 316 of 2017 [ENTITY] Appellant Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents 2. [CASE NUMBER]. [ENTITY] Appellant Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents 3. RFA No. 264 of 2017 [ENTITY] Appellant Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents 4. RFA No. 265 of 2017 [ENTITY] Appellant Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents 5. RFA No. 266 of 2017 [ENTITY] Appellant Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents Downloaded on - 06/11/2018 22:55:56 HCHP 30 6. RFA No. 317 of 2017 . [ENTITY] Appellant Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents 7. RFA No. 318 of 2017 [ENTITY] Appellant Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents 8. RFA No. 319 of 2017 [ENTITY] Appellant Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents 9. RFA No. 320 of 2017 [ENTITY] Appellant Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents 10. RFA No. 321 of 2017 [ENTITY] Appellant Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents 11. RFA No. 322 of 2017 [ENTITY] Appellant Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents Downloaded on - 06/11/2018 22:55:56 HCHP 30 . 12. RFA No. 323 of 2017 [ENTITY] Appellant Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents 13. RFA No. 324 of 2017 [ENTITY] Appellant Versus [ENTITY] & others r Respondents 14. RFA No. 325 of 2017 [ENTITY] Appellant Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents 15. RFA No. 326 of 2017 [ENTITY] Appellant Versus [ENTITY] & another Respondents 16. RFA No. 327 of 2017 [ENTITY] Appellant Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents 17. RFA No. 328 of 2017 [ENTITY] Appellant Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents Downloaded on - 06/11/2018 22:55:56 HCHP 30 18. RFA No. 329 of 2017 . [ENTITY] Appellant Versus [ENTITY] (deceased) Pushpa Devi & others Respondents 19. RFA No. 330 of 2017 [ENTITY] Appellant Versus [ENTITY] & another r Respondents 20. RFA No. 331 of 2017 [ENTITY] Appellant Versus [ENTITY] & another Respondents 21. RFA No. 332 of 2017 [ENTITY] Appellant Versus [ENTITY] & another Respondents 22. RFA No. 334 of 2017 [ENTITY] Appellant Versus [ENTITY] & another Respondents 23. RFA No. 335 of 2017 [ENTITY] Appellant Versus [ENTITY] & another Respondents Downloaded on - 06/11/2018 22:55:56 HCHP 30 24. [CASE NUMBER] . [ENTITY] Appellant Versus [ENTITY] & another Respondents 25. [ENTITY] [ENTITY] Appellant Versus [ENTITY] & another Respondents 26. [ENTITY] [ENTITY] Appellant Versus Rattan Chand & others Respondents 27. [ENTITY] [ENTITY] Appellant Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents 28. [ENTITY] [ENTITY] Appellant Versus Rattani Devi & others Respondents 29. [ENTITY] [ENTITY] Appellant Versus [ENTITY] (deceased) through her Lrs & others Respondents Downloaded on - 06/11/2018 22:55:56 HCHP 30 30. [CASE NUMBER] . [ENTITY] Appellant Versus [ENTITY] (deceased) through her Lrs & others Respondents 31. RFA No. 343 of 2017 [ENTITY] Appellant Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents 32. RFA No. 344 of 2017 [ENTITY] Appellant Versus [ENTITY] and another Respondents 33. RFA No. 345 of 2017 [ENTITY] Appellant Versus [ENTITY] and others Respondents 34. [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Appellant Versus [ENTITY] and others Respondents 35. [ENTITY] [ENTITY] Appellant Versus Amir Ali and others Respondents Coram: Downloaded on - 06/11/2018 22:55:56 HCHP 30 The Hon'ble Mr. Justice [ENTITY], Judge. Yes . Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant (s) : Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate, for respondents in RFAs No. 264, 316 to 321, 323 to 332, 335 to 339, 341, 342, 344 & 345 of 2017. Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate, for respondents in [CASE NUMBER]. Mr. [ENTITY], Senior Advocate with Ms. [ENTITY] and Mr. [ENTITY], Advocates, for respondent No. 1 in [CASE NUMBER]. Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate vice Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate, for respondent in [CASE NUMBER]. Mr. [ENTITY], Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. None for the respondents in other appeals. Downloaded on - 06/11/2018 22:55:56 HCHP 30 [ENTITY], Judge (oral)
These appeals arising out of a common award dated 02.04.2016, passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, (hereinafter referred to as 'Reference Court') in [CASE NUMBER] [CASE NUMBER] titled as [ENTITY] (deceased) through his Lrs. Versus [ENTITY] and another; Land Reference No. : 2-IV/12 RBT No. 153/2013/12 titled as Satya Prakash (deceased) through his Lrs. Versus [ENTITY] and another; Land Reference No. : 3-IV/12 RBT No. 154/2013/12 titled as [ENTITY] (deceased) through his Lrs. Versus [ENTITY] and another;
Land Reference No. : 4-IV/12 RBT No. 155/2013/12 titled as [ENTITY] (deceased) through his Lrs. Versus [ENTITY] and another; Land Reference No. : 5-IV/12 RBT No. 156/2013/12 titled as [ENTITY] (deceased) through his Lrs. Versus [ENTITY] and another; Land Reference No. : 6-IV/12 RBT No. 157/2013/12 titled as [ENTITY] and others Versus [ENTITY] and another; Land Reference .
No. : 7-IV/12 RBT No. 158/2013/12 titled as [ENTITY] and others Versus [ENTITY] and another; Land Reference No.: 8-IV/12 RBT No. 159/2013/12 titled as [ENTITY] & others Versus [ENTITY] and another; Land Reference No. : 9- IV/12 RBT No. 160/2013/12 titled as [ENTITY] and others Versus [ENTITY] and another;
Land Reference No. : 10-IV/12 RBT No. 161/2013/12 titled as [ENTITY] & others Versus [ENTITY] and another; Land Reference No. : 11-IV/12 RBT No. 162/2013/12 titled as [ENTITY] Versus [ENTITY] and another; Land Reference No. : 12- IV/12 RBT No. 163/2013/12 titled as [ENTITY] & another Versus [ENTITY] and another;
Land Reference No. : 13-IV/12 RBT No. 164/2013/12 titled as [ENTITY] and another Versus [ENTITY] and another; Land Reference No. : 14-IV/12 RBT No. 165/2013/12 titled as Dalbag Singh and another Versus [ENTITY] and another; Land Reference No. : 15-IV/12 RBT No. 166/2013/12 titled as [ENTITY] .
Versus [ENTITY] and another;
Land Reference No: 16-IV/12 RBT No. 167/2013/12, titled as [ENTITY] Versus [ENTITY] and another; Land Reference No. : 17-IV/12 RBT No. 168/2013/12 titled as [ENTITY] Versus [ENTITY] and another;
r Land Reference No. : 18-IV/12 RBT No. 104/2013/12 titled as Paro Devi & another Versus [ENTITY] and another; Land Reference No. : 19-IV/12 RBT No. 103/2013/12, titled as [ENTITY] & others Versus [ENTITY] and another; Land Reference No. : 20-IV/12 RBT No. 117/2013/12 titled as [ENTITY] Versus [ENTITY] and another; Land Reference No. : 21-IV/12 RBT No. 116/2013/12 titled as [ENTITY] Versus [ENTITY] and another; Land Reference No. : 22-IV/12 RBT No. 115/2013/12 titled as [ENTITY] Versus [ENTITY] and another;
Land Reference No. : 23-IV/12 RBT No. 114/2013/12 titled as [ENTITY] & others Versus [ENTITY] and another; Land Reference No. : 24-IV/12 RBT .
No. 113/2013/12 titled as [ENTITY] Versus [ENTITY] and another; Land Reference No. : 25-IV/12 RBT No. 112/2013/12, titled as [ENTITY] and another Versus [ENTITY] and another; Land Reference No. : 26-IV/12 RBT No. 111/2013/12, titled as [ENTITY] & another Versus [ENTITY] and another; Land Reference No. : 27-IV/12 RBT No. 110/2013/12 titled as Rattan Chand & others Versus [ENTITY] and another; Land Reference No. : 28-IV/12 RBT No. 100/2013/12, titled as [ENTITY] Versus [ENTITY] and others; Land Reference No. : 29-IV/12 RBT No. 102/2013/12 titled as Rattani Devi Versus [ENTITY] and others; Land Reference No. : 30-IV/12 RBT No. 101/2013/12 titled as [ENTITY] (deceased) through her Lrs. & others Versus [ENTITY] and others; Land Reference No. : 31-IV/12 RBT No. 99/2013/12 titled as [ENTITY] (deceased) through her Lrs. & others Versus [ENTITY] and others; Land Reference .
No. : 32-IV/12 RBT No. 109/2013/12 titled as [ENTITY] Versus [ENTITY] and others; Land Reference No. : 33-IV/12 RBT No. 108/2013/12 titled as [ENTITY] Versus [ENTITY] and another; Land Reference No. : 34-IV/12 RBT No. 107/2013/12, titled as [ENTITY] & another Versus [ENTITY] and others; [CASE NUMBER] titled as [ENTITY] Versus [ENTITY] and others and Land Reference No. : 37-IV/12 RBT No. 118/2013/12 titled as Amir Ali Versus [ENTITY] and others; are being decided by this common judgment, as common questions of law and facts, based on the identical evidence led in lead case, are involved therein.
2. [ENTITY], for expansion/construction of Nangal-Talwara Broad Gauge Railway Line, had acquired land in village Athwan, Tehsil Amb, District Una, after initiating acquisition process by issuing notification under [SECTION] of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which was published .
on 24.04.2009. After completing the process under the Act, the [ENTITY] (hereinafter referred to as Land Acquisition Collector) had announced Award No. 3/2009-10 under [SECTION] of the Act on 06.05.2010 assessing the market value of the acquired land on the basis of nature and classification as under:-
Sr.No. Class of land Rate per sq. m. Rate per Sq.m.
within radius of beyond 40 m 40 m of N.H. of N.H. i) [ENTITY] 575/- 450/- [ENTITY]. ii) [ENTITY] 560/- 450/- iii) [ENTITY] 400/- 300/- other [ENTITY] 3. Land owners/claimants, for enhancement of
compensation, had preferred reference petitions under [SECTION] of the Act which were clubbed together, wherein evidence was led only in one lead case, i.e. [CASE NUMBER] [CASE NUMBER], titled as [ENTITY] (deceased) through his Lrs. Versus [ENTITY] and another. After considering the evidence on .
record Reference Court vide the impugned award has re-
determined uniform value of land at the rate of Rs.1,000/-
per square meter alongwith statutory benefits thereupon irrespective of classification and category of the land.
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with award passed by the Reference Court, Northern Railway has preferred present appeals under consideration.
5. Land owners/claimants have examined four witnesses to substantiate their claim. PW-1 [ENTITY] and PW-4 [ENTITY] are Architects, who have been examined to establish the valuation of buildings/structures of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]. PW-2 [ENTITY] is Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat, who has been examined to prove the nature, location and potentiality of the acquired land. PW-3 [ENTITY], one of the landlords/claimants, has been examined on behalf of all the landlords/claimants to substantiate their claim.
6. The Northern Railway has examined RW-1 [ENTITY], Kanungo (Railway), Una, Himachal Pradesh to support valuation of Land Acquisition Collector and to rebut the claim .
of the land owners.
7. For establishing claim with respect to structures/buildings of [ENTITY], PW-1 has proved on record valuation Ext. PW-1/A, description of property Ext.
PW-1/B, ground floor plan Ext. PW-1/C and estimate Ext.
PW/1/D. Similarly, r abstracts of cost of two
structures/buildings of [ENTITY] have been proved as Ext.
PW-4/A & Ext. PW/4/D alongiwth calculations thereof Ext.
PW/4/B & Ext. PW-4/E and site plans Ext. PW/4/C and Ext.
PW-4/F. Jamabandis of land in question have also been placed on record as Ext. P-1 to Ext. P-23. As an exemplar transaction, land owners have put reliance on award passed by the Reference Court in another case bearing [CASE NUMBER], titled as Chain Singh & another versus [ENTITY] & others (Ext. P-
24), relating to acquisition of land in village Adarsh Nagar, Tehsil Amb for the same purpose initiated vide notification under [SECTION] of the Act, dated 24.04.2009, wherein, the Reference Court had awarded uniform rate of compensation at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per square meter. Reliance has .
also been placed on another award passed by the Reference Court in [CASE NUMBER], titled as [ENTITY] versus The Land Acquisition Collector & another (Ext. P-
25), wherein also, for acquisition of land for the same purpose by issuing notification under [SECTION] of the Act, published on 24.04.2009, value of the land acquired in Village [ENTITY], Tehsil Amb, Distt. Una has been determined at uniform rate to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- per square meters.
8. In its evidence, Northern Railway has placed on record copy of notification under [SECTION] of the Act (Ext.
RW-1/A) and notification under [SECTION] of the Act (Ext. RW-
1/B), Award No. 3/2009-10, passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (Ext. RW-1/C) alongwith [ENTITY] 19, under [SECTION] of the Act (Ex.RW-1/D) but related to [ENTITY] only. Further reliance has also been placed by Northern Railways on Sale Deeds Ext. R-1 dated 12.06.2008, R-2 dated 19.03.2009, R-3 dated 13.10.2007, R-4 dated 04.04.2008, R-5 dated 30.05.2008 and R-6 dated 11.06.2008.
9. Reference Court has taken into consideration .
exemplar Award Ext. P-25 pertaining to the adjoining village and has awarded the same rate i.e. Rs.1,000/- per square meter in present case also.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) has submitted that the Reference Court has committed an illegality by relying upon the awards Ex. P-24 and Ext. P-25 belonging to different villages as there is no evidence on record to establish that nature and potential of the land in Village Athwan and that of Villages Adarsh Nagar and [ENTITY] was the same and in absence of evidence that Villages Adarsh Nagar and [ENTITY] are adjacent to Village Athwan these awards could not have been taken into consideration for determining the value of acquired land.
According to him, land under acquisition, in the present case, is different in nature and there is no evidence of similarity of the same with the land of villages involved in Ext. P-24 and Ext. P-25 and, therefore, for different nature and potentiality of land, compensation at different rate is required to be determined.
11. Judgment of the apex Court in case titled as Jai .
Prakash and others versus Union of India, reported in (1997) 9 Supreme Court Cases 510, has also been relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant(s), wherein it has been held that merely because in some neighbouring vil-
lages, valuation has been made at a higher rate, it cannot be said that the claimants-land owners must also be given the same rate of compensation.
12. Reliance has also been placed by learned counsel for the appellant(s) on para 9 of the judgment rendered by the apex Court in case titled as [PRECEDENT], wherein the Apex Court has held that generally, there would be different situation and potentiality of land situated in two different villages and unless it is proved that the situation and potentiality of the land in two different villages are the same, the same rate of compensa-
tion, as awarded to the land owners of one village cannot be granted to the land owners of the another village for the ac-
quisition of land for the same purpose.
13. Pronouncement of the apex Court in case titled as .
[PRECEDENT], has also been relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant(s) wherein also it has been held that in absence of evidence of similarity of nature and potential of the land, previous judgment and award can-
not be made basis for awarding same compensation to the land owners of the adjacent villages.
14. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for land owners/claimants while referring the judgment, titled as [PRECEDENT], have justified the value re-determined by the Reference Court on the basis of Award Ext. P-24, with submissions that there is ample evi-
dence on record to infer that the value of land in Village Ath-
wan is equivalent to the value of land of Villages Adarsh Na-
gar and [ENTITY] and thus keeping in view the nature and contents of the evidence on record Reference Court has rightly awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per square meters, as awarded in Ext. P-24 and Ext. P-25. It is further contended that the Award passed in [ENTITY]'s case .
Ext. P-25, has attained finality, as the same has been af-
firmed by this Court vide judgment dated 26.07.2018, passed in [CASE NUMBER] alongwith connected matters, titled as [ENTITY]s versus [ENTITY] and another.
15. The Apex Court in case titled as Periyar and Par-
keekanni Rubbers Ltd. Versus State of Kerala, reported in 1991) 4, Supreme Court Cases 195, has held that when the Courts are called upon to fix the market value of the land in compulsory acquisition, the best evidence of the value of property is the sale of acquired land to which the claimant himself is a party, in its absence the sales of the neighbouring lands; and the transaction relating to the ac-
quired land of recent dates or in the neighbourhood lands that possessed of similar potentiality of fertility or other ad-
vantageous features are relevant pieces of evidence.
16. The Apex Court in case titled as Special Land Ac-
quisition Officer Kheda and another vs. Vasudev Chan-
drashankar and another, reported in (1997) 11 SCC 218 has ruled that award passed by Reference Court in another case .
subject to certain conditions, also offers a comparable base for determination of the compensation.
17. Ratio of law in above referred pronouncement is that in absence of availability of comparable sales in village/area, of which land is under acquisition, transaction relates to acquired land of recent dates or same dates in the neighbourhood lands, that possessed similar potentiality of fertility or other advantageous factors, are also relevant piece of evidence. However, for that purpose, nature and potentiality of land in two different villages should be the same for awarding the same rate of compensation in acquisi-
tion of land for the same purpose.
18. It also now well settled that where the purpose for acquisition of land is common and the acquired land is to be put in use for one and the same purpose irrespective of its nature and classification, an uniform rate notwithstanding the nature and classification of land is to be awarded for the said land. (See: LAC and another versus Bhoop Ram and an-
other, reported in 1997(2) Shimla Law Cases, 229, Smt. Gulabi & others versus State of H.P., reported in AIR 1998 HP 9, Housing .
Board versus Ram Lal and others, reported in 2003 (3) Shimla Law Cases 64, [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT], reported in Latest HLJ 2008 (HP), 1007, [PRECEDENT], Dadu Ram versus Land Ac-
quisition Collector and others, reported in (2016 2 ILR 636 (HP).
19. As per [SECTION] of the Act, the amount of com-
pensation awarded by the Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under [SECTION] of the Act. (Also see [PRECEDENT]).
20. Further it is also settled that when the purpose of acquisition is common and no developmental activity is re-
quired to be carried out for putting it for the said purpose, compensation is to be awarded at uniform rate. (see [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT].)
21. Law with respect to allowing or disallowing the de-
duction on account of development charges is also no longer res-integra and stands settled by the Apex Court in [ENTITY]'s case supra and Union of India and others Vs. N.S.Rath-
nam and sons (2015) 10 SCC 681, wherein it has been held that when for using the land to the purpose for which it is ac-
quired, no developmental activity is undertaken by the bene-
ficiary, no question of expenditure for development thereon would arise and therefore, in such case, deduction by way of development charges is unpermissible as where there is no developmental activity there is no reason to deduct develop-
ment charges.
22. Out of six sale deeds Ext. R-1 to Ext. R-6, Ext. R-3 is dated 12.10.2007, which is beyond the period of twelve months from date of publication of notification under [SECTION] of the Act and thus is not proximate in time as per adopted practice for determination of value of land. Otherwise also, value of land on the basis of sale deed becomes at the rate of Rs. 26.04 per square meters, which is less than the value determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. Similarly, value of land on the basis of other sale deeds become at the .
Rs. 35.15, Rs.36.10, Rs.197.96, Rs.261.19 and Rs.26.99 per square meter, respectively, the average whereof becomes at the rate of Rs.111.46 per square meter. Highest value in these sale deeds is Rs.261.19 per square meter which again less than that value determined by the Land Ac-
quisition Collector. Value of land on the basis of these sale deeds either singly or collectively after calculating average value becomes to be lesser value determined by the Land Acquisition Collector and award of compensation on the ba-
sis of which is impermissible under [SECTION] of the Act, hence these sale deeds have been rightly ignored by the Reference Court.
23. As discussed supra, in absence of availability of exemplar sale deeds pertaining to the village, land whereof is under acquisition, exemplar sale deeds of adjoining vil-
lages can be taken into consideration. The principle also ap-
plies equally to the award(s), pertaining to adjoining village(s), passed during acquisition of land in these village(s) and such award(s) can also be taken into .
consideration for determining the value of land under acquisition in adjacent village either for awarding identical compensation if nature and potentiality of lands of both villages is similar or after making appro-
priate deductions in cases, where similarity of nature and potentiality of lands in both villages is not estab-
lished.
24. PW-2 [ENTITY], in his examination-in-chief submitted by way of affidavit has deposed that village Athwan is a part of economic zone, Una surrounded by Amb Industrial Area in the East, Gagret Industrial area in the West, villages [ENTITY] and Mubarakpur in the North and village Adarsh Nagar, Amb in the South and is situated on National Highway Amb to Hashiarpur and all government offices/institutions of Sub Di-
vision Amb are near the land of this village under acquisi-
tion. In cross-examination, he has stated that his house is situated in village [ENTITY] and village Adhwan is also a part of village [ENTITY].
25. PW-3 [ENTITY] in his examination-in-chief .
has corroborated the statement of PW-2 [ENTITY] with further clarification that acquired land is situated in between the vil-
lages Adarsh Nagar Amb and [ENTITY] and on account of lo-
cation and quality, this land was the best land in the area.
The fact stated by PW-2 [ENTITY] and PW-3 [ENTITY], with regard to location of the land in question as well as the best quality of the same in comparison to other lands in sur-
roundings, has not been questioned in cross-examination.
From the oral evidence on record, it is apparent that the land under acquisition of village Athwan is located in between Adarsh Nagar Amb and [ENTITY]. Village Athwan is also hav-
ing the identical facilities of electricity, water like Adarsh Na-
gar Amb and Village [ENTITY] and also that the said land was having the potential of development as industrial/residential/commercial area, as the same is sur-
rounded by industries on three sides. Further, the land is also situated near the National Highway like the land of vil-
lages [ENTITY] and Adarsh Nagar. Not only this, the Land Ac-
quisition Collector, at the time of acquisition of the land of village [ENTITY], has rated the value of land of village Athwan .
and [ENTITY] almost of the similar value. The said fact is evi-
dent on comparison of rate determined by LAC in present case as reproduced in para 2 with the value of land of village [ENTITY] determined by him, which is reproduced in award Ext. P-25, which reads as under:-
Sr.No. Class of land Rate per sq. m. Rate per Sq.m.
within radius of beyond 40 m r 40 m of N.H. of N.H. i) [ENTITY] 575/-(Athwan) 450/- (Athwan) [ENTITY]. 600/- 450/- ([ENTITY]) ([ENTITY]) ii) [ENTITY] 560/-(Athwan) 450/-(Athwan) 550/- ([ENTITY]) 450/- ([ENTITY]) iii) [ENTITY] 400/-(Athwan) 300/-(Athwan) other [ENTITY] 400/- ([ENTITY]) 300/- ([ENTITY])
26. From the above comparison, it is evident that for [ENTITY] situated within the radius of 40 meters of National Highway and for the land situated be-
yond 40 meters of National Highway, value of land in village [ENTITY] has been determined at the rate of Rs. 600/- and Rs.450/-, whereas for village Athwan, it has been valued at the rate of Rs. 575/- and Rs. 450/-, for [ENTITY], the rates are Rs. 550/- and Rs. 450/- in village [ENTITY] and Rs.
560 and Rs. 450/- in village Athwan has been assessed. Sim-
ilarly, [ENTITY] and other [ENTITY] land has been assessed having the value at Rs. 400/- and Rs. 300/- in both the villages. Therefore, Land Acquisition Collector himself considered the value of nature and potentiality of land of both the villages on equal footings. Therefore, plea of North-
ern Railway that there is no evidence on record for equating nature and potentiality of land of these two villages, is not sustainable. As there is ample evidence of similarity of na-
ture and potentiality, the award passed in related acquisition in village [ENTITY] can be taken into consideration for award-
ing identical rate for acquisition of land in village Athwan.
27. Though, there is also evidence of location of land at Village Adharsh Nagar Amb adjoining to village Adhwan, but there is weak evidence of similarity of nature and poten-
tiality of that land with land of village Athwan. Therefore, award Ext.P-24 cannot be strictly relied upon for awarding the identical compensation of land in village Athwan. Pe-
rusal of the impugned award passed by the learned Refer-
ence Court also indicates that this award Ext. P-24 pertaining .
to village Adarsh Nagar, Amb has not been taken into consid-
eration by the Reference Court for enhancing the value of land under consideration. The Reference Court has only re-
lied upon the award Ext. P-25, pertaining to village [ENTITY].
28. For the discussion made hereinabove, no illegal-
ity, irregularity or perversity is found committed by the Ref-
erence Court by relying upon the award Ext.P-25 for deter-
mining the value of acquired land at the rate of [ENTITY]'s case supra and Union of India and others Vs. N.S.Rath-
nam and sons (2015) 10 SCC 681, s. 1,000/- per square meter.
I find no ground for interference, particularly when the said award Ext.P-25 has also been affirmed by this Court vide judgment dated 26.07.2018, passed in [CASE NUMBER] alongwith connected matters.
29. So far as the valuation of the building/structure standing on the land under acquisition is concerned, no evi-
dence to rebut the same has been led by the Northern Rail-
ways before the Reference Court. In cross-examination of PW-1 [ENTITY] and PW-4 [ENTITY] also nothing sub-
stantial has been brought on record to discredit the valua-
tion of building/structure proved by these witnesses. Rather it has come in their cross-examination that the scheduled rate of Public Works Department was followed for valuation and nothing has been put to these witnesses or placed on record to establish that valuation carried out by them was not inconsonance with the scheduled rate of PWD or exces-
sive in nature. Therefore, no interference on this issue also, is warranted.
30. Therefore, land owners/claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation on the basis of value of land at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per square meters alongwith statutory benefits and also compensation for structures/houses as de-
termined by the Reference Court.
31. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and all appeals are dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
32. Record be sent back.
1st November, 2018 ([ENTITY]) (hemlata/tm) Judge