IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA Nos. 279 and 280 of 2004 Decided on : 27th October, 209 RFA No.279 of 2004 Surender Singh & Ors Versus L.A.C. RFA No.280 of 2004 Surender Singh & Ors Versus L.A.C. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Appellants : M/s Baldev Singh and A.K. Singh, Advocates, in both the appeals. For the respondent: Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General in both the appeals. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) These two appeals by the land owners are directed against the award dated 3.7.2004 of learned District Judge, whereby references, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, made at their instance, have been disposed of and their prayer for enhancement of compensation, on account of value of the land, value of trees, value of structures and damages to structures standing on adjoining un-acquired land, has been rejected. 2. Government of Himachal Pradesh utilized land belonging to private owners, situate in village Salawaon Upperla for construction of a road, named Baran-Da-Ghat, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… sometime in the year 1976. However, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of the said land was issued on 5.5.1989. Award was given by the Land Acquisition Collector on 27.11.1992. Land of the appellants, which was acquired, pursuant to the aforesaid notification and for which compensation was assessed, vide award dated 27.11.1992, was as follows: Land of appellants Surender etc. 1 bigha 9 biswas, bearing Khasra Nos. 49/1, 67/1 and 197/1 Land of deceased Munshi Ram, now represented by Surender etc. 1 bigha 13 biswas, bearing Khasra Nos.48/1 and 66/1 3. Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land according to the classification of the land, which is as follows: Sr.No. Kind of Land Rate Per Bigha 1. Chahi Rs.6162.00 2. Anderli Awal Rs.6162.00 3. Gair Mumkin Abadai Rs.6162.00 4. Anderli Doem Rs.4757.00 5. Bahrli Awal Rs.3027.00 6. Bahrli Doem Rs.1406.00 7. Banjar, Kharetar Rs.649.00 8. Gair Mumkin Rs.649.00 4. Appellants were paid compensation for the land in accordance with the aforesaid market value. In addition to that, they were paid interest and compulsory acquisition …3… charges in accordance with the provisions of law. There also stood certain trees on the acquired land for which the compensation was got worked out from the officials of Horticulture and Forest Departments and the quantum of compensation, as assessed by the officials of the aforesaid two departments, was paid alongwith interest and compulsory acquisition charges. 5. Appellants were not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, assessed and paid by the Land Acquisition Collector. So, they approached him for making references to the learned District Judge. References were made accordingly. Appellants claimed that they were entitled to compensation for the land at a rate not less than Rs.30,000/- per biswa or say Rs.6 lacs per bigha. They also claimed that the market value of the trees, both fruit bearing and non-fruit bearing, was much higher than that assessed and paid by the Land Acquisition Collector. It was alleged that there stood a house on the acquired land of appellant Surender for which no compensation had been paid. Also, it was alleged that some structures standing on the un-acquired portions of the land of the appellants were damaged while constructing the road but no compensation for the damage to those structures had been paid. 6. Learned District Judge vide award, under challenge, has held that compensation awarded by the Land …4… Acquisition Collector for the land and the trees is adequate. Claim of the appellants for compensation of the alleged structure on a portion of the acquired land and damage to some other structures has been rejected by the learned District Judge with the observation that no evidence had been led, indicating that damage was caused to any structure standing on un-acquired portion of the holdings of the appellants. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned Assistant Advocate General. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants concedes that the appellants did not lead any evidence in support of their contention that market value of the land was not less than Rs.30,000/- per biswa, as alleged in the reference petition. He has also conceded that the appellant did not lead any evidence that the compensation paid for the trees was inadequate or that appellants were entitled to any compensation on account of damage to any structure standing on the acquired or un-acquired land. He, however, submits that according to the evidence led by the respondent itself, i.e. State of Himachal Pradesh, market value of the land was Rs.3000/- per bigha, but the appellants have been paid compensation at a rate less than that. He has drawn the attention of the Court to Ext. RA, a sale deed proved by the respondent. According to this …5… document, 3 bighas and 2 biswas of land was sold for Rs.9000/-. That means, the market value of the land was around Rs.3000/- per bigha, irrespective of its classification, because in document Ext. RA, classification of land is not given and the vendor sold her share in a number of Khata-Khataunis. 9. Appellants in one case have been paid a total compensation of Rs.1022/-, on account of value of their land measuring 1 bigha 3 biswas and in the other case they have been paid a sum of Rs.3405.85, on account of value of land measuring 1 bigha 9 biswas. At the rate of Rs.3000/- per bigha, the value of the land in the first case comes to Rs.3450/-, in respect of land measuring 1 bigha 3 biswas and in the other case, the value of the land comes to Rs.4350/-, in respect of land measuring 1 bigha 9 biswas. 10. In view of the above stated position, both the appeals are partly allowed and it is ordered that the appellants be paid the difference between the market value of the land as assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector and that assessed by this Court hereinabove and such difference be paid alongwith compulsory charges @ 30% and on the sum total of the aforesaid difference and the compulsory charges interest be also paid from the date of taking over of the possession, i.e. 1.4.1976 to the date of payment of enhanced compensation, awarded hereby, @ …6… 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the remaining period. Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly. October 27, 2009(ss) (Surjit Singh), J