IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA No.123 of 2009 along with RFA Nos. . 113, 114, 115, 116, 1[SECTION],118, 124, 125, 126, 12[SECTION], 128, 129,130, 131, 132 of 2009, 302, 336, 341,342 and 343 of 2011. Date of decision: 5th December, 2019. 1. RFA No. 123 of 2009. [ENTITY] and another Appellants. Versus [ENTITY] r Respondent. 2. RFA No. 113 of 2009. The [ENTITY] and another Appellants. Versus [ENTITY] and another Respondents. 3. RFA No. 114 of 2009. The [ENTITY] and another Appellants. Versus [ENTITY] Respondent. 4. RFA No. 115 of 2009. The [ENTITY] and another Appellants. Versus [ENTITY] Respondent. 5. RFA No. 116 of 2009. The [ENTITY] and another Appellants. Versus [ENTITY] Respondent. Downloaded on - 09/12/2019 20:26:01 HCHP 2 6. RFA No. 1[SECTION] of 2009. The [ENTITY] and another Appellants. . Versus [ENTITY] and others Respondents. [SECTION]. [CASE NUMBER]. The [ENTITY] and another Appellants. Versus [ENTITY] (deceased) through his LRs Bimla Devi and others Respondents. 8. [CASE NUMBER]. The [ENTITY] and another Appellants. Versus [ENTITY]) through his LRs Kanta Walia and others Respondents. 9. RFA No. 125 of 2009. The [ENTITY] and another Appellants. Versus [ENTITY] and others Respondents. 10. RFA No. 126 of 2009. The [ENTITY] and another Appellants. Versus [ENTITY] and another Respondents. 11. RFA No. 12[SECTION] of 2009. The [ENTITY] and another Appellants. Versus [ENTITY] and others Respondents. Downloaded on - 09/12/2019 20:26:01 HCHP 3 12. RFA No. 128 of 2009. . The [ENTITY] and another Appellants. Versus [ENTITY] Respondent. 13. RFA No. 129 of 2009. The [ENTITY] and another Appellants. Versus [ENTITY] Respondent. 14. RFA No.130 of 2009. The [ENTITY] and another Appellants. Versus [ENTITY] and others Respondents. 15. RFA No.131 of 2009. The [ENTITY] and another Appellants. Versus [ENTITY] and others Respondents. 16. RFA No. 132 of 2009. The [ENTITY] and another Appellants. Versus [ENTITY] (deceased) through his LRs Ram Prashad and others Respondents. [SECTION]. RFA No. 302 of 2011. The [ENTITY] and another Appellants. Versus Downloaded on - 09/12/2019 20:26:01 HCHP 4 [ENTITY] Respondent. 18. RFA No. 336 of 2011. . The [ENTITY] and another Appellants. Versus [ENTITY] and others Respondents. 19. RFA No. 341 of 2011. The [ENTITY] and another Appellants. Versus [ENTITY] (deceased) through his LRs Rahul Kumar and others Respondents. 20. RFA No.342 of 2011. The [ENTITY] and another Appellants. Versus [ENTITY] Respondent. 21. RFA No. 343 of 2011. The [ENTITY] and another Appellants. Versus [ENTITY] (deceased) through his LRs [ENTITY] and others Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice [ENTITY], Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. No For the Appellant(s) : Mr. [ENTITY], Additional Advocate General with Mr. [ENTITY] and Ms. [ENTITY], Deputy Advocate Generals. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes Downloaded on - 09/12/2019 20:26:01 HCHP 5 For the Respondents : Mr. [ENTITY], Senior Advocate with Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate, . for the respondents, except for respondents No.1(a) to 1(e) in [CASE NUMBER] and [CASE NUMBER]. Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate, for the respondent, in [CASE NUMBER]. [ENTITY], Judge (Oral)
CMP(M) Nos. 1699 and [SECTION]00 of 2019 in [CASE NUMBER].
By medium of this application being [CASE NUMBER], the applicants/appellants have sought to bring on record the legal representatives of sole respondent, who is stated to have died on 06.10.2018. Even though, the application is belated, however, for the reasons set out in the application, the delay in filing of the application for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased-respondent is condoned and the legal representatives of sole respondent as mentioned in para-3 of [CASE NUMBER], are ordered to be brought on record. Both applications stand disposed of.
[CASE NUMBER] in [CASE NUMBER].
2. By medium of this application being [CASE NUMBER], the applicants/appellants have sought to bring on record the legal representatives of sole respondent, who is stated to have died on 03.03.2009. Even though, the application is belated, however, for the reasons set out in the application, the .
delay in filing of the application for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased-respondent is condoned and the legal representatives of sole respondent as mentioned in para-3 of [CASE NUMBER], are ordered to be brought on record. Both applications stand disposed of.
3. All these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as they relate to the acquisition of land for extension of airport at Gaggal, District Kangra, H.P.
4. The issuance of various notifications under the [ACT] (for short, 'the Act') and thereafter passing of the award by the Land Acquisition Collector, Kangra, are not in dispute. The appellant issued notification under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the Act on 28.06.1999 and thereafter on 30.12.1999 under [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the Act seeking acquisition of the land of the respondents at Mohal Sanauran, Mauza Dhugiari, Tehsil and District Kangra. The Land Acquisition Collector announced his award on 0[SECTION].09.2000, whereby he awarded different rates for different kinds of lands.
5. The respondents filed references under [SECTION] of the Act, which were duly allowed by the learned Court below by awarding a uniform rate of Rs.[SECTION]50/- per square metre vide award dated 29.09.2008.
6. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellants filed the appeals questioning the awards. One batch of the said appeals came to be allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.11.2016 passed in [CASE NUMBER], being the lead case, along with connected matters, titled as [PRECEDENT]. Whereas, another batch of appeals, the lead whereof being [CASE NUMBER], titled as The [PRECEDENT], along with connected matters, came up before this Court and the same were dismissed by this Court on 24.0[SECTION].20[SECTION] by according the following reasons:
"4. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant has filed the instant appeals questioning the award primarily on the ground that the sale deed, Ext.
PW4/A, of an area of Marla even in the same revenue estate could not have been cited as an exemplar while calculating the compensation for a larger area of land. In addition to, it is argued that exemplar, Ext. PW4/A, could not have been otherwise made basis for the enhanced compensation particularly when the land involved therein was admittedly sold after notification under [SECTION] of the Act had been issued.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the cases .
carefully.
6. It is not in dispute that save and except, the exemplar, Ext. PW4/A, there is no other sale deed available on record, which pertains to the land in question and, therefore, no fault can be found with the court when in absence of exemplar of large piece of land. This issue is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT]. It is apt to reproduce paras [SECTION] and 8 of the judgment, which reads thus:
"[SECTION].The claimant-appellants (landowners) had filed copies of four sale deeds which are Exs. P-[SECTION], P-8, P-9 and P-10. In fact, Ex. P-[SECTION] is a copy of a sale deed by which [ENTITY] bought some land in village Chhapra on 28.[SECTION].1982, which itself became subject matter of acquisition. [ENTITY] had deposed that he had bought the land for construction of shops.
All these four sale deeds related to sale transactions prior to the issuance of the notification under [SECTION] of the Act on 9.2.1983. The High Court excluded Ex.P-8 from consideration as it related to a very small piece of land measuring 19 marlas only. The average price of the three sale deeds viz. Ex. P-[SECTION], P-9 and P-10 came to little more than Rs.1,20,000/- per acre. Apart from these three sale deeds, no other exemplars were filed either by the State of Haryana or by the landowners. The High Court accepted the price exhibited by the aforesaid three sale transactions which came to little more than Rs.1,20,000/- per acre. It thus recorded a finding that the market value of the land was Rs.1,20,000/- per acre. In our opinion, there being no other documentary evidence, the view taken by the High Court that the market value of the land was Rs.1,20,000/- per acre is perfectly correct and calls for no interference.
8. Shri [ENTITY], learned senior counsel for the sugar mill has submitted that the exemplars filed by the appellants were of very small pieces of land and, therefore, they are not safe guide to determine the market value of the land. It may be mentioned here that while determining the market value, the potentiality of the land acquired has also to be taken into consideration. The appellants have led evidence to show that the acquired land had the potentiality to be used for commercial, industrial and residential purposes. PW.1 [ENTITY] had prepared a site plan which showed that the acquired land was adjacent to the abadi of Shahabad and abutted the Shahabad-Ladwa Road. The site plan also shows that there existed rice shellers, cold storage, shops, godowns, a college and houses etc. on both sides of Shahabad-Ladwa Road. PW.2 [ENTITY] was Patwari of village Chhapra in the year 1983. He deposed that all the four villages viz. Kankar Shahbad, Chhapra, Jandheri and Jhambara are adjacent to each other and the acquired land abutted the Shahabad- Ladwa Road. He further deposed that the acquired land was 2 kilometer from G.T. Road and there were buildings, godowns, a cinema hall, factories on both sides of the Shahabad-Ladwa Road. Therefore, there can be no manner of doubt that the acquired land had the potentiality for being used for commercial, industrial and residential purposes and there was fair possibility of increase in its market value in the near future. Therefore, the fact that the exemplars filed by the appellants were of the small pieces of land could not be a ground to discard them specially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available. They could, therefore, be used as a safe guide for determining the market value of the land."
[SECTION]. Insofar as the contention of the appellant that the sale deed, which was executed after notification .
under [SECTION] of the Act, could not form basis of awarding the compensation is concerned, as observed above, there is no other sale deed available on record, which pertains to the land under acquisition or in close proximity, therefore, in such circumstances, even post notification instances can be taken into account if they are very proximate, genuine and the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of resultant improvement in development prospects as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1988) 3 SCC [SECTION]51.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT] had even approved the reliance of sale deed, which was three years later than the notification under [SECTION] of the Act.
9. As regards the last contention of the appellant, exemplars of the small pieces of land could not be made basis of determining enhanced compensation, suffice it to say that the area, whether it is large or small, is required to be determined on the basis of individual holding and not by clubbing together the individual holdings, treating them as a large area, thereby differentiating them from similar land and applying a lower market value to such holdings. This was so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thakarsibhai Devjibhai vs. Executive Engineer, (2001) 9 SCC 584.
10. Apart from what has been observed hereinabove, it would be noticed that in terms of exemplar, Ext. PW4/A, the land measuring 30 square metres had been sold by one [ENTITY] to [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] for a consideration of Rs.45,000/-, which works out to Rs.1500 per square metre. As against this amount, the learned could below has only awarded a sum of Rs.[SECTION]50/- per square metre and, therefore, I really do not find any reason for the appellant to be aggrieved.
11. Having said so, I find no merit in these appeals, which are dismissed accordingly, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed."
[SECTION]. It is further not in dispute that the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in [CASE NUMBER] along with connected matters was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No.22312-22329 of 20[SECTION] titled as 'Sawrup Singh etc. etc. versus [ENTITY] and another, decided on 11.09.2019 and the same was allowed in the following terms:
"O R D E R Leave granted.
After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties at some length, with broad consensus, we set aside the impugned order(s) passed by the High Court and permit the appellants to file application(s) for adducing additional evidence in the form of Sale Deed, if .
any, and also other evidence before the High Court, in which case the High Court shall consider the same in accordance with law and take fresh decision in the matter.
In view of the above, the appeals are allowed."
8. None of the parties has adduced any additional evidence and as regards the sale deeds already on records, this Court has also gone through the same in the judgment passed supra. Therefore, on the basis of and for the reasons stated in judgment rendered in [CASE NUMBER], along with connected matters, which shall be read mutatis mutandis in these appeals, and has otherwise attained finality, all these appeals are dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. All pending applications stand disposed of.
5th December, 2019. ([ENTITY]) (krt) Judge