IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. RFA No.208 of 2004 with RFA Nos.209 & 210 of 2004 Reserved on: September 29, 2008. Date of Decision : October , 2008. RFA No.208 of 2004 Collector, LAC and another …Appellants. Versus: Rajinder Sharma and others …Respondents. RFA No.209 of 2004 Collector, LAC and another …Appellants. Versus: Chansari Co. Op. Agricultural Service Society …Respondent. RFA No.210 of 2004 Collector, LAC and another …Appellants. Versus: Dhani Ram …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. and Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Dy. A. G. For the respondents. Mr. Sunil Mohan, Goel, Advocate SANJAY KAROL, JUDGE. These appeals arise out of a common Award dated 1.12.2003, passed by the District Judge, Kullu, H. P. in 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Reference Petition No. 139/2002 titled as Rajinder Sharma & another vs. Collector, LAC & another; Reference Petition No. 140/2002 titled as The Chansari Coop. Agricultural Service Society Ltd., vs. Collector, LAC & another; and Reference Petition No. 142/2002 titled as Dhani Ram vs. Collector, LAC and another and, as such are being disposed of by a common judgment. For the public purpose, namely, construction of ‘Bye Pass National Highway-21’, Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 7.7.1996 (lastly published on 7.9.1996) was issued by the State Government seeking to acquire the claimants land measuring 2-14-11 bighas situate in Village Phati Kharahal, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. The acquisition proceedings concluded with the passing of the Collector’s Award No.2/1998 dated 5.6.1998, wherein the market value of the acquired land was assessed at Rs.1,20,000/- per bigha for the entire land regardless of the category and classification of the land. With regard to the trees on the land, the supplementary award was to be issued after the receipt of the evaluation report from the Horticulture Department. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed Land Reference Petitions under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Collector. 3 The Court below famed the following issues :- 1) Whether the compensation has not been granted properly and adequately to the petitioners, if so, what was the market value of the acquired land at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? ………………OPP 2) Relief. Based on the evidence led by the parties (oral and documentary), the market value of the acquired land was enhanced from Rs.1,20,000/- per bigha to Rs. 3 lacs per bigha. The basis for enhancement of the compensation was the Land Reference Awards passed by the District Judge, Kullu, H. P. in Reference Petition No.96/98 dated 18.9.2000 (Ext.PM), Reference Petition No.29/2001, dated 31.8.2002 (Ext.PO) and Reference Petition No.11/1996, dated 31.7.1998 (Ext.PQ). The present appeals have been filed by the State. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by the claimants. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. In order to prove their case, the claimants examined S/Shri Dhani Ram (PW-1) and Ishwar Dass ( PW-2). Sale Deeds Ext.PW-2/A, Ext.PW-2/B & Ext.PW-2/C also stand proved on record by the claimants. No oral evidence was led by the State but, however, the documentary evidence in terms of Sale Deeds being Ext.RA to Ext.RE were tendered in evidence. The Court below has not considered the Sale Deeds Ext.RA to Ext.RE for the reason that the Vendor and Vendee 4 were not examined by the State. This, in my view, is not the position in law now and the reasoning given by the Court below to this extent is set-aside. However, it is a matter of record that no person had stepped into the witness box to prove the similarity, extent, use and category of the acquired land with that of the land covered by the exemplar Sale Deeds, therefore, for this reason the same cannot be considered for determining the market value of the acquired land. The Awards Ext.PM, Ext.PO & Ext.PQ passed by the District Judge, Kullu in various land reference petitions have not attained finality. This is so stated by the learned counsel for the claimants. In this view of the matter, even these Awards cannot be relied upon to determine the market value of the acquired land. Mr. Goel, however, has drawn my attention to the Sale Deeds proved on record by the claimants and also the copy of the Award passed by the Collector in Award No.9/94 dated 26.10.1994 (Ext.PG). Award Ext.PG arises out of the acquisition proceedings dated 24.7.1991, for the very same public purpose, namely, construction of “National Highway-21 Kullu-Bye-Pass” and in the very same village i.e. Village Phatti Kharahal where the land is acquired and the Collector, after taking into account the location and the potentiality of the land determined the market value to be Rs.3 lacs per bigha for all kinds of land. 5 Land acquired vide Collector Award Ext. PG, belonged to PW-2, who in the present case, has deposed that his acquired land was just at a distance of 100 feet to 150 feet from the acquired land in question. The similarity and utility of both the lands being same stands proved by this witness. In terms of award Ext.PG the acquisition proceedings pertaining to the year 1991 Rs.3 lac was awarded, whereas for the present acquisition pertaining to the year 1996 only Rs.1,20,000/- was awarded. In the instant case, even the Collector while passing Award No.2 of 1998 has noticed the advantageous location of the acquired land in question as under:- “The land under acquisition is located opposite ‘Akhara Bazar’ of Kullu across the river Beas on the left bank and is therefore high commercial and potential value. Since the land being located opposite the busiest commercial value place, “Akhara Bazar” it is of high commercial value. Considering the potentiality and commercial value of the land under acquisition a flat rate is Rs.1,20,000/- is hereby awarded.” However, the said market value is assessed purely on guess work and without any basis. The matter needs to be examined from another angle. Ext.PW-2/A is a Sale Deed dated 17.12.1991, whereby 2 biswas of land stood sold for a consideration of Rs.1,20,000/-. Ext.PW-2/B is Sale Deed dated 6 27.6.1992, whereby 3 biswas of land stood sold for a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- and Ext.PW-2/C is Sale Deed dated 9.10.1992, whereby 2½ biswas of land stood sold for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. The value of the land of the exampler sale deeds was approximately Rs.12 lacs per bigha between the year 1991 & 1992. Both PW-1 and PW-2 have proved the extent, category, classification, potentiality and use of the acquired land with that of the exemplar land covered by the exemplar sale deeds. They pertain to the same village. If the said Sale Deeds are to be taken into consideration, the market value of the acquired land would be much more than what has been awarded by the Court below. However, the claimants are satisfied with what has been awarded by the reference Court as they have neither filed any appeal nor any cross-objection. Even during hearing of the present appeals, no enhancement was sought. As per the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Karan Singh and another v. Union of India (1997 (8) SCC 186), the judgments of the Courts in land acquisition cases or the awards given by the Land Acquisition Officers can be relied upon as piece of evidence for determining the market value of the land, if the same are admitted in evidence and there is evidence to prove the similarity of land and other attending circumstances. Shri Dhani Ram (PW-1) has categorically deposed that the acquired land is on the Southern side of the land of 7 claimant Shri Ishwar Dass, covered by the Collector’s Award Ext.PG. The acquired land is an orchard and just opposite to the Akhara Bazar. The land is extremely suitable for setting-up of a Hotel due to its proximity with the National Highway under construction as also the main Kullu Bazar. From Tourism point of view it has great potential. There is no effective and serious cross-examination of this witness. Since the potentiality, the use, the location, its proximity with the main Kullu bazaar and the National Highway stand proved, I see no reason as to why the claimants should also be not awarded compensation at the same rates at which the Collector had assessed the market value in terms of Ext.PG. Importantly, the Land Acquisition Officer in both the cases is the same. The impugned Award has been passed after taking into consideration the entire material. I see no reason to interfere with the same. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. However, it is clarified that the claimants shall be entitled to all statutory benefits including interest, solatium in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sunder vs. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211. The interest shall be payable from the date of the publication of the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. October , 2008. ( Sanjay Karol ), (rana) Judge.