IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RFA No. 291 of 2007 with RFA No. 296 of 2007, RFA No. 313 of 2007 and RFA No. 196 of 2008. Date of Decision : April 27, 2010 1. RFA No. 291 of 2007 Smt. Premi Devi Appellant Versus Land Acquisition Collector, HPPWD & another Respondents 2. RFA No. 296 of 2007 Sh. Parkash Chand and others Appellants Versus Land Acquisition Collector, HPPWD & another Respondents 3. RFA No. 313 of 2007 Sh. Sunder Ram Sharma Appellant Versus Land Acquisition Collector, HPPWD & another Respondents 4. RFA No. 196 of 2008 Smt. Savitri Devi Appellant Versus Land Acquisition Collector, HPPWD & another Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant(s) : Ms. Vidushi Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant(s) in RFA No. 291/2007, RFA No. 296/2007 and RFA No. 196/2008. For the respondents : Mr. P. M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) According to the learned counsel for the parties these appeals are squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in RFA No. 379 of 2006, titled as Surinder Kumar versus Land Acquisition Collector & another and other connected matters decided on 1.7.2009. It is further stated that in fact the acquisition proceedings are for the very same public purpose. 2. In Surinder Kumar (supra) the Court was dealing with notification dated 7.10.2002 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The said notification was published in the H.P. Rajpatra on 20.12.2002 and the Collector’s Award No. 45 is dated 19.3.2004. The land acquired for the public purpose i.e. construction of Hamirpur bye-pass road was situated within the municipal limits of Hamirpur township in the revenue estate Chaula Kalan, Mauja Bajuri, Tehsil Hamirpur, HP. The Collector Land Acquisition, had determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 15,000/- per marla for ‘Barani Abbal’ and ‘Barani Deom’ category and Rs. 10,000/- per marla for ‘Gair Mumkin’ category of land. This Court, based on the sale deed (Ext. P-3) dated 12.9.2000 whereby 118.24 sq. mts. of land was sold for a sum of Rs. 2,36,000/- (market value of which comes to Rs. 38,380/- per marla) enhanced the compensation of the acquired land and uniformally awarded Rs. 38,400/- per marla. Undisputedly the decision in Surinder Kumar (supra) has attained finality. 3 3. Chart depicting the particulars of each claimants/appellants in the instant appeals is as under: Sr. No. RFA No. Name Land. Ref. No. Khasra No. Area 1. 291/2007 Smt. Premi Devi 11 of 2005 151/1 & 7 kanal RBT 19/05 185/1 2. 296/2007 Sh. Parkash Chand 12 of 2005 2/1 0-10 marla and others RBT 17/05 3. 313/2007 Sh.Sunder Ram 23 of 2005 107 0-15 marla Sharma RBT 1/06 4. 196/2008 Smt. Savitri Devi 13 of 2005 200/99/1 2 kanal RBT 18/05 & 6 marla 4. In these appeals the acquired land is situated in village Chamardi, Mauza Bajuri, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, H.P. There is no dispute that the acquired land in these cases is just adjacent to the land acquired in the case of Surinder Kumar (supra). This, in any event has been so held to be by the Court below. In the instant case notification issued under Section 4 of the Act is dated 20.12.2002. The instant claimants have also relied upon sale deed Ext. PW 5/B which in fact was the sale deed Ext. P-3 in the case of Surinder Kumar (supra). There is no dispute with regard to the similarity of use, nature and potential of the instant acquired land with that of the land sold in terms of sale deed Ext. PW 5/B [Ext. P-3 in Surinder Kumar (supra)]. The same has been specifically proved by the witnesses. The land undisputedly is situated within the Municipal limits and could have been put to commercial use as large number of commercial establishments had come up in the vicinity. 4 The learned counsel for the claimants agree that even though the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act is subsequent to the notification issued in the case of Surinder Kumar (supra), but however their clients would be content if compensation is determined and awarded on such rates as was so done in the case of Surinder Kumar (supra). 5. This Court in Surinder Kumar (supra) has held as under: “The contention that all the claimants as witnesses have differently deposed with respect to the exact value of the acquired land, in my view cannot be the basis for disbelieving their statements. Each claimant values his land in a different manner. It is a settled position of law that the market value to be determined is such, as that a willing seller is ready to sell the land which the purchaser is willing to purchase at the agreeable price. Be that as it may be, none of the claimants have deposed the market value to be less than Rs. 40,000/- per marla. From the record it is evident that the sale transactions in question are genuine and have been sufficiently proved by the claimants. It has proved on record by clear and cogent evidence that entire land was put to commercial use. The Himachal Pradesh Roadside Land Control Act, 1968 is an impediment in the enjoyment of complete use of remaining unacquired land. The entire land is situated within the municipal limits and the sale transaction Ext.P -3. 5 From the material on record, in my considered view the sale deed Ext.P3 can be safely considered and relied upon for determining the market value of the acquired land. In terms of the said sale the market value comes to Rs. 38,380/- or say Rs. 38,400/- per marla. The claimants thus would be entitled to the same. The compensation shall be paid to the claimants by taking the same into account. The impugned award is modified to the aforesaid extent. It is clarified that the claimants shall be entitled to statutory compensation and entitlements as held by the Court below and more particularly keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Sunder versus Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211.” 6. For the aforesaid reasons the claimants herein are also entitled for the same benefits which stand accorded in the aforesaid case. As such, for the acquired land the claimants shall be entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation at the market price which is determined at Rs. 38,400/- per marla. The claimants shall also be entitled to statutory benefits in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Sunder versus Union of India, 2001 (7) SCC 211. 7. With the aforesaid observations the appeals stands allowed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. April 27, 2010 (PK)