IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Appeal No. 196 of 2001 (Old FA No. 855 of 1999) Tehri Hydro Development Corporation, having its Registered Office at Bhagirathi Bhawan, Top Terrace, Bhagirathi Puram, Tehri (Tehri Garhwal). … Appellant. Versus 1. Vidya Sagar Nautiyal son of Late Sri Narayan Dutt Nautiyal, 2. Smt. Deveshwari Devi wife of Sri Vidya Sagar Nautiyal, both residents of Purana Darbar, Tehri City, district Tehri Garhwal. (Claimants) 3. State of U.P. through the Collector, Tehri Garhwal. … Respondents. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the claimant-respondents. Date December 02, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Oral) This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) is directed against the judgment and award dated 28-6-1999, passed by the District Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in Land Acquisition Reference No. 2 of 1989, Sri Vidya Sagar Nautiyal and another Vs. The State of U.P. and another, whereby the claimant-respondents were awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,35,368.73 in addition to the amount of compensation of Rs. 4,46,880.27, which was awarded to them by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (Irrigation-1) Tehri by award dated 22-9-1986 in respect of the land under acquisition. Brief facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are that the land belonging to the claimant-respondent nos. 1 and 2 pertaining to Ward No. 2 of Tehri Town was acquired and notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 22-1- 1983 followed by a notification under Section 6 of the Act, which was published on 8-10-1983. Thereafter the possession of the land under acquisition was taken. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (Irrigation) Tehri after completing necessary formalities has passed the Award on 22-9-1986. Being dissatisfied by the said award, the claimant-respondents filed their objections and claimed a total 2 compensation amounting to Rs. 9,47,250.00 as detailed in the impugned award, which gave rise to a reference under Section 18 of the Act before the District Judge. The said reference was registered as Land Acquisition Reference No. 2 of 1989. The learned reference Court framed following Issues in the case:- ISSUES 1. Whether the compensation awarded is inadequate? If so, what is the adequate amount of compensation? 2. Relief? The learned reference Court recorded the evidence led by the parties and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties has held on Issue No. 1 that the petitioners are entitled to compensation for the land under acquisition at the rate of Rs. 30/- per Sq. Ft., which comes to Rs. 1,06,350/-. The learned reference Court further awarded a sum of Rs. 2,80,000/- as compensation for the constructed portion of the land acquired. The learned reference Court declined to award compensation for the trees. Towards change of residence, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded. Ultimately, the learned reference Court has held on Issue No.1 as under:- “Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 1,06,350/- for their entire land and Rs. 2,80,000/- for the constructions thereon besides Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for change of residence. Therefore, I find that the compensation awarded to the petitioners is inadequate and the adequate amount of compensation which may be awarded to the petitioners under section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is Rs. 3,96,350/- as detailed above. This issue is decided accordingly.” The learned reference Court on Issue No. 2 has held that the petitioners are entitled to 30% solatium and interest etc. and 3 has held that the petitioners are entitled to enhanced amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,35,368.73 and has passed the award dated 28-6-1999 accordingly, which has been assailed by the appellant in the present appeal. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the claimant-respondents has contended that the learned reference Court while passing the impugned award has awarded compensation for the land at the rate of Rs. 30 per Sq. Ft. as was awarded earlier in Land Acquisition Reference No. 4 of 1986, Sri Lakhi Ram Semalti Vs. State of U.P. Learned counsel for the claimant-respondents further submitted that the land in that case was situated in Ward No. 2 of Tehri town. Learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the judgment rendered by this Court in First Appeal No. 202 of 2001 Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Vs. Krishnana Nand Joshi and others, wherein this Court had considered the judgment in F.A. No. 560 of 2001, State of U.P. Vs. Lekhi Ram Semalti and has held that the land under acquisition is similarly situated to that of the land in Lekhi Ram Semalti case and that the land was acquired for the same purpose. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the learned reference Court has rightly awarded compensation for the land under acquisition @ Rs. 30/- per Sq.Ft. This amount of compensation had been awarded by this Court for the similarly situated land of Ward No.2 Tehri Town in First Appeal No. 560 of 2001(Old No. 658 of 1992) State of U.P. Vs. Sri Lekhi Ram Semalti, decided on 9-8- 2004. Learned counsel for the appellant has fairly conceded that the First Appeal No. 202 of 2001 (Old No. 572 of 1995) Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Vs. Krishnana Nand Joshi and others was dismissed by order dated 22-7-2005. 4 In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I am of the view that this Court has finally assessed the compensation for the land under acquisition at the rate of Rs. 30/- per Sq.Ft. falling in Ward No. 2 of Tehri Town. The land under acquisition is similarly situated in all respect to the land acquired in First Appeal No. 560 of 2001, decided on 9-8-2004 by a Division Bench of this Court. There is nothing on record to establish that the market value of the land awarded by the learned Reference Court at rate of Rs. 30/- per Sq.Ft. is in any way on the higher side or that the same was less than Rs. 30/- per Sq.Ft. at the relevant time. The learned reference has also elaborately dealt with each and every aspect of the case while awarding compensation on other heads i.e. for constructed portion, change of residence etc. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court in the case at hand. The appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed outright. The appeal is dismissed. Costs easy. All pending applications stand disposed of. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP