IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. RFA No. 62 of 2004 Date of Decision : December 31, 2008 ______________________________________________ Ganga Ram & Others ……… Appellants. Versus: LAC and others ……. . Respondents ___________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the appellants: Mr. R. K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For respondent No.1. Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A. G. For respondent No.2. None ___________________________________________________ Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral). The present appeal arises out of the impugned Award dated 10.7.2003, passed by the District Judge, Bilaspur (H.P.), in Land Reference Case No. 26 of 2003/1986 titled as Hari Ram (deceased) through his LRs Ganga Ram & Others vs. LAC & another. For the public purpose, namely, construction of ‘Multi-purpose Projects & Powers’, the State acquired the Claimants/appellants land comprising Khasra Nos. 102/98/2/1, 102/98/2/2, 102/98/2/3 and 102/98/2/4, Kita 4, measuring 0-7 biswas, situate in village Oel, Up Mohal Kosarian, Pargana and Tehsil Sadar, Distt. Bilaspur. Notification for the acquisition of 2 the land was issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 22.11.1984. The Collector Land Acquisition passed his Award No.6/86 dated 22.2.1986 determining the market value of the acquired land as under:- Area Class of land Rate per biswa 0-12 Gair Mumkin 1666.07 Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed a reference petition u/s 18 of the Act, claiming Rs.10,000/- per biswa as compensation of the acquired land. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Court below framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the enhanced compensation on account of land, houses and trees etc. as alleged, if so to what amount? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation with regard to the severence of their land on account of the acquisition? If so, to what amount? Opportunity to lead evidence was afforded to the parties. Relying upon the material on record (oral and documentary), the Court below enhanced the market value from Rs.1600/- to Rs.5600/- per biswa. In order to prove its case, the claimants examined S/Shri Ram Pal (PW-1), Daulat Ram (PW-2), Hari Ram (PW-3), Inder Singh (PW-4) & T. R. Azad (PW-5). These witnesses 3 proved on record the copies of the Sale Deeds Ext.P-1 & Ext.P-2, the assessment of the built up structure Ext.PW-4/A, Ext.A-1 to Ext.A-7, assessment reports Ext.PW-5/A, Ext.PW-5/B-1 to Ext.PW-5/B-3. In rebuttal, the respondents examined S/Shri Mangat Ram (RW-1), Ashok Kumar (RW-2) and proved on record the site plan of the house, Ext. Mark-B and the copy of the assessment carried out by the department Ext.R-1. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the award for the reasons that the determination of the market value of the acquired land is much on the lower side and the same be enhanced. In so far as the acquisition of the built up structure is concerned, the compensation awarded is not the subject matter of challenge. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the Sale Deed Ext.P-1 ought to have been considered for determining the market value. In terms of Sale Deed Ext.P-1, two biswas of land was sold on 11.7.1985 for a sum of Rs.14,000/-. In terms of Sale Deed Ext.P-2, two biswas of land was sold on 10.3.1988 for a sum of Rs.49,000/-. The exemplar Sale Deed Ext.P-2 cannot be considered to be determinative of the market value as the land was sold along with the pucca house built thereupon. Further, PW-2 purchaser of the said land has deposed that the land and the house is not connected by either motorable road or mule road. 4 In so far as the Sale Deed Ext.P-1 is concerned from the statement of PW-1, it is evident that he has not deposed anything to prove the similarity of use, extent, purpose and nature of the acquired land with that of the said exempler sale land. Be that as it may be the Court below has considered the same while determining the market value of the acquired land. Having made the same as basis keeping in view the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another, reported in AIR 1988 SC 1652, has taken into account the negative and the positive factors. The Court has taken into account the fact that even though the exempler sale land was at a distance of 200 yards but however, the same was not connected by road and, therefore, the market value of Rs.7,000/- per Biswa of the exempler sale land was reduced by 20%. In my view, the Court below has considered the entire material and correctly appreciated the record. Necessary deductions have been carried out based on sound principles of Law. Apart from Ext.P-1 & Ext.P-2, there is nothing on record to show that the market value of the acquired land is higher than what has been awarded by the Court below. I see no scope of further enhancement. 5 It is a settled principle of law that the onus to prove that the market value of the acquired land is higher than what has been awarded by the Collector, is on the claimants. I see no irregularity or illegality in the impugned award. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. December 31, 2008 (rana)