IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA. No. 184 of 2003.. Date of Decision: 16.6.2010. _______________________________________________ L.A.C. ….Appellant. Versus. Amba Dutt and another. ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant. : Mr. R.K.Bawa, Advocate General with Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General. For Respondents. : Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The State is aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Reference Court acquiring land of the respondents for the construction of Ramnagar-Thana Link Road. Being dis-satisfied by the award made by the Collector, the petitioners preferred petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 claiming enhancement of compensation. The learned Court came to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled for compensation of land measuring 1-6 bighas @ 1,92,700/- per bigha which was acquired for the construction of road and also awarded Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?yes. 2 compensation in respect of 30 apple plants. In all a sum of Rs. 2,36,000/- was awarded. The State is now in appeal. It is contended by the learned Advocate General that the courts below was wrong in valuing the land at the rates at which the award has been made. The learned Advocate General submits that the trees were to be the subject mater of supplementary award and that the cost of the land has been valued at more than 50 times. Ext.RW1/C which was the recommendation made by the Land Acquisition Collector to the District Collector and which was approved forming the basis of the award, was not final and subsequently these values were scaled down. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The learned reference Court holds that when there are no comparable sale instances which can guide the Court, the valuation of land of the adjoining/adjacent villages etc. can be taken to be the indicator of the market value of the land. In the present case, it is in evidence of RW-1 Sh. Mast Ram that the land of the petitioners which is situated in Chak Rehawat adjoining Chak Khola and that the rates RW1/C were actually recommended by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Deputy Commissioner which stands approved. RW1/C contains these rates. During the course of the hearing of this petition, learned Advocate General has drawn my attention to the supplementary affidavit filed by the State pursuant to the 3 orders passed by this Court on 19.11.2008 and 1.7.2009 to place on record the material to show as to whether the rates of Mauja Khola were actually approved by the Collector or not. The affidavit has now been filed and Annexure:A-2, states in no uncertain terms that the approval of the rates of land adjoining Mouja Khola for mauja Janol, Davag and Rehawat (which is the place where the land of the claimants is situated) has already been approved. In view of this, the submission made on behalf of the State is rejected. No other point has been urged before me. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. June 16, 2010(R)