IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. RFA No. 31 of 2007 Date of Decision : May 21, 2010 State of H.P. & Ors. …Appellants Versus: Padmu Devi & Ors. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellants: Mr. R. M. Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents. Mr. V. S. Chauhan, Advocate Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The State has filed this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act assailing the impugned award dated 18.12.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Shimla, H. P., in Land Ref. Petition No. 32-R/4 of 04/2K titled as Padmu Devi & Ors. vs. State of H.P. & others. 2. For the public purpose, namely, ‘Construction of Rohru- Barara-Karasa road’, the State Govt. issued Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The Collector Land Acquisition issued his award No.22 of 85 dated 29.7.1997. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Aggrieved of the same, claimants filed a land reference petition under Section 18 of the Act. Particulars of their land are as under:- Khasra No. Area Nature 911/2 0-07-76 Bagicha Bakhal Awal 4. In the claim petition the claimants sought enhancement of the compensation by claiming market value to be Rs.2 lacs per bigha. The claimants also sought compensation towards the trees on the acquired land. 5. Reference petition was opposed by the State. 6. The Court below assessed the market value of the acquired land to be Rs.50,000/- per bigha. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 8. In my considered view there is no scope of interference in the present appeal filed only by the State. Even at the time of hearing of the petition the claimants did not assail the findings of the impugned award. 9. Importantly the transactions entered into by the parties in village Gangtoli were not taken into account by the Court below for the simple reason that there is nothing on record to prove the location of the acquired land with that of the exemplar sale land. Compensation however was determined and enhanced on the basis of the sale transactions placed on record by the respondents. 3 10. While passing the award the Court below has observed as under:- “16. The acquired land was Bagicha Bakhal Awal. The Collector has assessed the market value of Bakhal Kiar Awal, Bakhal Awal, Karali awal and Karali Doyam. The market value of the Bagicha Bakhal Awal has not been assessed by the Collector. Therefore, the amount of compensation paid to the petitioner was not adequate. 17. The transaction of sales produced by the petitioner relates to Gangtoli and cannot be made basis for assessing the market value of the land. The petitioner has not brought any material to prove the location of the acquired land and the land which has been sold in Gangtoli. The transaction also pertains to the period prior to the date of notification, whereas the transactions of sale in respect of Mauza Barara which are proximate to the period of notification makes it evident that there is considerable difference between the market value of Gangtoli and Barara. Therefore, also the instances of sale of Mauza Gangtoli cannot be made basis to assess the market value of the acquired land, which is situate in Barara chak. 18. The proximate transaction of sale in view of the location of land which can be compared with Ext.R-2, sale deed dated 03.05.1995 situated at Barara was sold for Rs.1,000/- i.e. Rs.20,000/- per bigha which can be determined to be market value of Bakhal Doyam land and in such a situation the market value of Bakhal Awal land is assessed at Rs. 30,000/- per bigha. The acquired land is Bagicha Bakhal Awal, therefore, the market value of the acquired land is assessed @Rs.50,000/- per bigha. 19. Per award statement 21 fruit bearing apple trees were damaged at the time of construction of road and the 4 value of the aforesaid apple trees was assessed at Rs.10,206/- by the Land Acquisition Collector on the basis of recommendation of Horticulture Department as per Harbans Singh Formula. There has been four to five time increase in the price index since 1966 when the said formula was formulated. Therefore, the aforesaid assessment of the fruit bearing trees has to be increased four times per decision reported in 1998(I) Sim.L.C. 479 in case titled Union of India vs. Khazana Ram and others. The entitlement of the petitioners for compensation to the aforesaid fruit bearing trees after multiplying the aforesaid amount of compensation by four times comes to Rs.10,206/- X 4 = Rs.40,824/-. 20. Thus, it is evident that the petitioners are entitled for the enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per bigha for Bagicha Bakhal Awal and compensation for the trees to the tune of Rs.40,824/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be payable to all co-sharers in proportionate to their share. This issue is decided in favour of the petitioners.” 11. From the record it could not be showed as to how the said reasoning adopted by the Addl. District Judge, Shimla is erroneous, perverse or not borne out from the record. 12. It is a settled position of Law that the claimants are entitled to get compensation for the acquired land which is just, fair and reasonable. Enhancement is also not on the higher side. 13. Even with regard to the fruit bearing trees the compensation assessed is fair and reasonable. The same is based on the material on record. No illegality could be pointed 5 out with respect to the same. Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned award. The appeal filed by the State is consequently dismissed. 14. Needless to add the parties shall be entitled to the benefits of the directions given by the Apex Court in Sunder vs. Union of India {2001(7)SCC 211}. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. May 21, 2010. (rana)