IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFAs No.22 & 63 of 2007 Reserved on : November 11, 2009 Decided on : November 12, 2009. RFA No.22/2007 Ramesh Kumar ....Appellant. VERSUS State of H.P. and others ....Respondents. RFA No.63/2007 State of H.P. and others ….Appellants. VERSUS Ramesh Kumar ….Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Advocate, in RFA No.22 of 2007, and Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General, in RFA No.63 of 2007. For the respondent(s): Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General, in RFA No.22 of 2007 and Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Advocate, in 63 of 2007. Surjit Singh, J These two appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment, as both of them are directed against the same award, i.e. award dated 17th November, 2006, of learned Additional District Judge, Solan. 2. Facts relevant for the disposal of the appeals may be stated. State of Himachal Pradesh acquired 1208 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… sq. metres of land of appellant Ramesh Kumar, bearing Khasra Nos.841 and 840, Mauza Deon, Solan, for construction of a water storage tank, after issuing notification, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, in March, 2003. Award was given by Land Acquisition Collector on 26th February, 2005. He assessed the market value of the land at Rs.133/- per sq. metre and paid compensation, alongwith solatium, increase, under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, and interest. 3. Appellant Ramesh Kumar, the owner of the land, was dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation. He approached the Land Acquisition Collector to make reference, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, to the District Judge. Reference was accordingly made. Appellant Ramesh Kumar claimed that the market value of the land was not less than Rs.10,000/- per sq. metre. It was claimed that the land was situated within the municipal limits of Solan and abutted on the National Highway. 4. Land Acquisition Collector filed reply and alleged that the acquired land was situated at a distance of two kilometers from Solan town and 300 metres away from the road-head. It was stated that the Land Acquisition Collector had rightly assessed the market value of the acquired land. 5. Learned District Judge, relying upon one of the sale deeds proved by appellant Ramesh Kumar, i.e. Ex. PB, concluded that the market value of the acquired land was …3… Rs.750/- per sq. metre and ordered the payment of compensation accordingly, alongwith compulsory acquisition charges, increase under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, and interest. 6. Appellant Ramesh Kumar, land owner, is not satisfied even with the enhanced market value. He has preferred this appeal, seeking further enhancement in the compensation. Appeal filed by him is RFA No.22 of 2007. 7. Second appeal has been filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh, which is RFA No.63 of 2007. State has assailed the increase in the compensation. It is alleged that the market value of the land was not more than Rs.133/- per sq. metre, as determined by the Land Acquisition Act. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for appellant Ramesh Kumar as also the learned Deputy Advocate General and gone through the record. 9. Learned counsel for appellant Ramesh Kumar argued that market value of the acquired land was required to be determined, in accordance with the awards of District Judge, copies Ex. PF, Ex. PH, and award Ex.PG of Land Acquisition Collector. 10. Award Ex. PF pertains to the land acquired in Mauza Basal, award Ex. PH pertains to the land situate in Mauza Chambaghat and award Ex. PG again pertains to the land situate in village Basal. Learned counsel insisted that compensation be paid in accordance with the award Ex. PG …4… of Land Acquisition Collector. As already noticed, this award pertains to the land acquired in village Basal. Also, the land of which compensation was assessed vide Ex. PG had been notified for acquisition in June, 2005, or say more than two years after the acquisition of the land, involved in the present appeals. Market value of the land was assessed at Rs.950/- per sq. metre vide Ex. PG. Market value of the land, in the present case, has been assessed at Rs.750/- per sq. metre. Market value of the land in village Basal can also be presumed to be not more than Rs.750/- in the year 2003, because its value was Rs.950/- per sq. metre in 2005, per award Ex. PG. 11. In view of the above discussion, there does not seem to be any merit in the claim of Ramesh Chand, appellant in RFA No.22 of 2007, for further increase in the quantum of compensation. Hence, the same is dismissed. 12. Learned Deputy Advocate General argued that various sale deeds had been proved on record by the Land Acquisition Collector. The same are Ex. RW-1/A, Ex.RW-1/B, Ex. RW-1/C and Ex. RW-1/D. He argued that according to these sale deeds the market value of the land situate in village Deon is much less than the market value assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector, i.e. Rs.133/- per sq. metre and, therefore, the learned District Judge was not justified in enhancing the compensation and assessing the market value at Rs.750/- per sq. metre. …5… 13. State or the Land Acquisition Collector did not examine the vendees or vendors of the land sold through the aforesaid sale deeds nor did they lead any other evidence, with regard to the situation of the land sold through the said sale deeds or the potential of the pieces of land. Even this much was not proved that the pieces of land sold through the aforesaid sale deeds were situated within the municipal limits of Solan town or close to the National Highway. Acquired land of appellant Ramesh Kumar is part of khasra numbers which abut on the National Highway and this fact is admitted by Prabhat Singh (RW-1), a witness of the Land Acquisition Collector. 14. In view of the abovestated position, I do not find any merit even in the appeal of the State. So, the appeal filed by the State, i.e. RFA No.63 of 2007, is also dismissed. Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly. November 12, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J.