IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA No. 304 of 2005 Date of decision: 1.12.2009 Mansa Ram & Others ……………Appellants Versus State of H.P. & Others ……………Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, J. Whether approved for reporting?1No. For the appellants : Mr. B.N. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. Sanjay Karol, J. The appellants are aggrieved of the award dated 7th July, 2005, passed by the District Judge, Kinnaur, Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr, H.P. in Land Reference Petition No. 4 of 2003, titled as Mansa Ram and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, whereby their petition filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) stands dismissed. For the public purpose namely “Construction of Sidhpur-Bahali-Sarahan Road” the State acquired land 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 situated in village Chiksa of Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla. The notification under Section 4 of the Act issued on 3rd May, 1998 was published in the H.P. Rajpatra on 23rd of June, 1998. The Collector passed his award No. SML-11/91 dated 3.11.2000 under Section 11 of the Act. In terms of the said award the compensation with respect to the land situated Mauja Majhali was determined as under:- “Tehsil Mauja Kism Bhumi Dar prati Hactor ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rampur Chiksa 1.Bakhal Abal Rs. 195200.00 2.Bakhal Doem Rs. 195200.00 3. Karali Abal Rs. 148100.00 4. Karali Doem Rs. 38800.00 5. Banjar Kadim Rs. 38800.00 6. Gair Majrua Rs. 38800.00” The present appellants’ land was also acquired for the said public purpose. The extent of the appellants’ land is Khasra No. 199/1 measuring 0-04-54 hectares, Khasra No. 567/1 measuring 0-03-14 hectares, and Khasra No. 569/1 measuring 0-03-14 hectares. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellants filed Land Reference petition under Section 18 of the Act. . The Court below dismissed the said petition for want of any material to establish that the market value of the 3 compensation awarded by the Collector was in fact lower than the true and correct market value or that the Collector had not awarded adequate compensation to the appellants. In support of their claim the appellants have examined Shri Mansa Ram PW-1, Shri Kam Raj PW-2, Shri Sidhu Ram PW-3, Shri Dalip Singh PW-4. In rebuttal, the respondents-State has examined Shri Ram Lal RW-1. Having perused the record, I am of the view that the impugned award passed by the Court below cannot be interfered with for the reason that there is no material on record to prove the fact that the market value of the acquired land was in fact higher than what was determined by the Collector in terms of its award passed under Section 11 of the Act. PWs-1, 2 and 3 have simply proved on record sale deed Ext.PW2/A. This has been done in support of their claim for getting compensation for their acquired land @ Rs. 80,000/- per bigha, which is so stated by PW-1. Ext.PW2/A is the sale deed dated 26th May, 1997 whereby three biswas of land stood sold for a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. In terms of the said sale the market value of the exemplar land works out to be Rs. 60,000/- per bigha (approximately). However, 4 this sale pertains to revenue estate Kuhal. No doubt, PW-4 has deposed that revenue estate Kuhal is close to revenue estate Chiksa, where the instant acquired land is situate. In his cross-examination he has admitted that the productivity and fertility of the land in revenue Estate Keem is inferior to that of revenue estate Chiksa and Kuhal. This however, in any event does not advance the appellants case as there is nothing on record to prove that the exemplar sale land is any way similar to the acquired land with respect to its size, nature, potential and uses etc. A solitary instant of sale in an adjoining revenue estate cannot in abstract be taken as an example to determine the market value and pay compensation to the appellants for the acquired land. My attention has been invited to the decision rendered by this Court in Chemera Hydro Electric Project vs Ganga Ram and ors., Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 214 to contend that sale instances of the adjoining village can be made basis for determining the market value of the acquired land. There cannot be any quarrel with this preposition if it is proved on record that there are no contemporaneous sale transactions in the same village and evidence of similarity of land is there. However, in the 5 present case, the exemplar sale (Ext.PW2/A) cannot be made basis for determining the market value of the acquired land for want of evidence of similarity. I may point out that initially the matter was heard on 22nd June 2009 when opportunity was afforded to the appellants to move an appropriate application for bringing on record additional material in support of their case. Inspite of opportunities afforded, no such steps were taken. The Court below has correctly appreciated the material in its entirety and no case of interference is made out. There is no irregularity, illegality or perversity in the impugned award. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), 1st December, 2009 Judge. (vs)