IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA R.F.A.No. 122 of 2003. Judgment reserved on : 22.6.2009 Date of decision : July 8, 2009. Land Acquisition Collector and others …Appellants. Versus Shri Ishwar Dass and another ....Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellants : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. I.D.Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr. B.S.Ranjan, Advocate. Kuldip Singh , Judge This appeal has been directed against the award dated 18.3.2002 passed by District Judge, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr in Land Reference Case No. 115 of 1999. 2. The facts in brief, are that the Department of Public Works, Government of Himachal Pradesh vide notification dated 7.1.1994 published in the gazette on 22.1.1994 under Section 4 of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?Yes. 2 the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘Act’) for acquisition of land comprised in khasra Nos. 984/1, 1062/1. 1062/2, 1062/3, 1064/1 measuring 0-19-35 hectares situate in revenue estate Junni, Sub Tehsil Nankhari, District Shimla for construction of Bhutti – Delath road. The Collector announced the award on 25.2.1997 and determined the compensation as per the classification of land as follows :- Sr.No. Classification of land. Rate of land per bigha 1. Kiar Awal Rs. 10,106.95 2. Kiar Doem Rs. 7,219.25 3. Bakhal Awal Rs. 3,529.41 4. Krali Awal Rs. 1,443.85 5. Banjar Kadeem Rs. 500.00 3. The respondents filed petition under Section 18 of the Act for determination of compensation. It was alleged that they had not been paid proper compensation, the land was occupied in the year 1988 by the State. They claimed interest and additional compensation w.e.f. 1.1.1988. The appellants contested the claim of the respondents and submitted that the Collector had rightly determined the market value of the acquired land along with fruit bearing trees. The claim of the appellants for interest and additional compensation was also denied. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the Collector Land Acquisition had inadequately assessed the market value of the land under acquisition? …..OPP. 2. Relief. 3 The District Judge awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per bigha inclusive of acquisition of fruit bearing trees, solatium at the rate of 30% on the enhanced amount of compensation, additional amount of compensation under Section 23 (1 – A) at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. 22.1.1994 to 25.2.1997. Separate interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 25.2.1997 for one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the payment was also allowed. 4. Heard and perused the record. On behalf of the appellants, it has been submitted that the District Judge has erred in enhancing the compensation at the rate of Rs. 35,000/- per bigha. The market value assessed by the Collector as per classification of the land was correct. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the learned District Judge has rightly assessed the compensation. He has submitted that in RFA No.168 of 2003 for construction of Bhutti – Delath road, notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the gazette on 19.3.1994 for acquiring land in adjacent estate Khadahan, Sub Tehsil Nankhari. It has been submitted that the Land Acquisition Collector in that case had announced the award on 18.2.1997 as per classification of the land as follows:- Sr.No. Classification of land. Rate of land per bigha 1. Kiar Awal Rs. 10,106.95 2. Kiar Doem Rs. 7,219.25 3. Bakhal Awal Rs. 3,529.41 4. Krali Awal Rs. 1,443.85 5. Banjar Kadeem Rs. 500.00 4 It has been submitted that the District Judge in RFA No. 168 of 2003 had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per bigha. The rates given by the Collector and District Judge in RFA No. 168 of 2003 were the same as given by the Collector and District Judge in the present case. It has been submitted in light of judgment dated 11.9.2008 in RFA No. 168 of 2003 there is no merit in the present appeal. 5. PW-4 Palas Ram, Patwari, Patwar Circle, Khuni – Panoli has stated that Juni, Jahu, Khadahan, Bhamnoli revenue estates are under his jurisdiction. Revenue estate Khadahan is near Jahu and Juni revenue estates. RW-1 Visheshwar Lal, Patwari, Patwar Circle, Ogli, has stated that he had compiled average market price of the land under acquisition as per compilation Ex.RW-1/A. The average market price of land in revenue estate Khadahan was the same as was the average market price of land in revenue estate Juni. The land of revenue estate Khadahan and revenue estate Juni is comparable with the land of revenue estate Jahu. 6. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the gazette on 22.1.1994 for acquiring the land in revenue estate Juni for construction of Bhutti – Delath road. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the gazette on 19.3.1994 for acquiring the land involved in RFA No.168 of 2003 for construction of Bhutti – Delath road in revenue estate Khadahan. The Land Acquisition Collector vide award dated 25.2.1997 in the present case and award dated 18.2.1997 with respect to land involved in RFA No. 168 of 2003 had given the same rate as per 5 classification as noticed above. The District Judge in the present case as well as in RFA No. 168 of 2003 has determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per bigha. It has come in evidence that revenue estates Juni and Khadahan are adjacent, the notification under Section 4 in RFA No. 168 of 2003 was published in the gazette on 19.3.1994 which is proximate in time to the notification under Section 4 in the present case which was published in the gazette on 22.1.1994. Thus, the rate approved and determined in RFA No. 168 of 2003 is fully applicable in the present case. There is no merit in the appeal which is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( Kuldip Singh ), Judge. July 8, 2009. (GR)