IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. RFA No. 459 of 2004 with RFAs No. 460 & 461 of 2004 Date of Decision : May 14, 2009 RFA No. 459 of 2004 Union of India …Appellant Versus: Khushi Ram & Ors. …Respondents RFA No. 460 of 2004 Union of India …Appellant Versus: Devi Singh & Ors. …Respondents RFA No. 461 of 2004 Union of India …Appellant Versus: Jiu Devi & Ors. …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 No For the appellant(s): Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Asstt. Solicitor General of India. For the claimants : Mr. Devender Ghosh, Advocate For the State : Mr. R. K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The present appeals arise out of the common award dated 31.5.2003 passed by the District Judge, Kinnaur Civil 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Division at Rampur Bushahr, H.P. in Land Reference Petition No. 80 of 1999 titled as Khushi Ram v. L.A.C. & Ors., Land Reference Petition No. 79 of 1999 titled as Devi Singh & Anr. v. L.A.C. & Ors. & Land Reference Petition No. 83 of 1999 titled as Jiu Devi & Ors. v. L.A.C. & Ors., and, as such, are being taken- up together. Learned counsel for the claimants has invited my attention to the judgment dated 16.12.2008 delivered by this Court in RFA No. 430/2004 titled as Union of India v. Damodar Dass & Ors. According to him, the impugned award dated 31.5.2003 arises out of the very same acquisition proceedings which was also subject-matter in the aforesaid cases. A copy of the said decision is taken on record Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The claimants land amongst other land owners, situate in village Averi, H.P. was acquired vide Notification dated 16.11.1994, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) which was published in the H.P. Rajpatra on 21.9.1995. Award No. 1/1998 dated 19.3.1998 was passed by the Collector, Land Acquisition. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, it may not be necessary to consider the evidence material and the contentions of the parties in these cases when the matter is concluded by the decision of this Court in Damodar Dass (supra). 3 Several land owners including the present claimants filed Land Reference Petitions before the District Judge under Section 18 of the Act. The same were decided in terms of different awards passed by the District Judge. This Court, in Damodar Dass (supra), after relying upon the evidence led by the claimants therein upheld the award passed by the District Judge in one of the cases being Land Ref. Petition No. 40 of 1999, wherein the District Judge enhanced the compensation awarded by the Collector from Rs.52,500/- per bigha to Rs.60,000/- per bigha for all categories of land. In the impugned award, the Court below has also enhanced the compensation from Rs.52,500/- per bigha, as awarded by the Collector to Rs.60,000/- per bigha. The instant land being covered by the very same Notification, hence I see no reason as to why the appellants be also not awarded the same compensation. The fact that the claimants land was acquired in terms of the Notification issued under the provisions of the Act is not in dispute. The extent, the location and the entitlement of the claimants is also not in dispute. It is equally true that even though large chunk of land was acquired for setting up of defence establishment but, however, individual share holding of each claimant is not very big and substantial. The increase of the amount of the market value is also not very high and is just about 10% from what was awarded by the Collector, Land Acquisition. 4 In order to prove its case, the claimants examined Shri Khushi Ram (PW-1) and Shri Mela Ram (PW-2). In rebuttal, the respondents examined Shri Shyam Chand (RW-1) and Shri Chain Ram (RW-2). Village Averi is at a distance of 6 kms. from Rampur. That the acquired land was put to agricultural use and the claimants used to sow maize and wheat stands proved by PW-1. The crop sown on the acquired land was sold at Rampur, which in fact is closer from the acquired land and were having an annual income of Rs.one lac per bigha. According to the claimants, the market value of the acquired land was approximately 2½ lacs per bigha. With the acquisition of the land, as stands proved by them, there has been mass dislocation of population which has not only effected their personal life but also their businesses. The acquired land was well connected by road and having all modern facilities, such as, telephone, road, electricity, water, school and market also stands proved by PW-1. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that Rampur, Tehsil Headqurters, is a fast going township. In and around Rampur, many Mega Power Projects have already been established and are in the process of being commissioned. The acquired land is just at a distance of 6 kms. from Rampur. PW-1 has also proved that the new power project by the name of Rampur Hydel Power Project is being constructed just at a 5 distance of 4 kms. from Averi towards Duttnagar, which is near Rampur. Thus, the potentiality of the acquired land to be put to use other than agriculture cannot be ruled out and is in fact substantial. The Collector Land Acquisition, passed the Award on the basis of the annual average market price (Ext.RW-2/A) of village Nirmand, according to which the market price of the land at Nirmand for different categories of land was ; Ropa Awal = Rs.31,464/- per bigha, Ropa Doem = Rs.27,268/- per bigha, Ropa Soem = Rs.17,200/- per bigha, Bakhal Awal = Rs.18,458.88 per bigha. The same was considered as according to the witnesses of the State, five yearly average market price as also the annual average market price of village Averi was very less and could not be construed to be determinative of the true market value of the acquired land. The locational situation of village Averi from Rampur does not appear to be in dispute. Nirmand is at a distance of 12 kms. from village Averi. If this was so then why the average price of village Rampur was not taken into account by the Collector, is not evident from the record. It is now settled principle of law that the market value of the acquired land has to be determined on the crucial date of notification under Section 4 of the Act and only the genuineness of the sale transaction has to be taken into account and the 6 market value has to be assessed on the basis of comparable sale transaction which has taken place in the area concerned and proximity from time angle and proximity from situation angle has to be identified and every case must be dealt with its own and valuation of these factors would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rules. Common sense is the best and the most reliable guide. The Apex Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer {AIR 1988 SC 1652}, R. L. Jain (Dead) by LRs vs. DDA and others {2004(4) SCC 79} and Ravinder Narain and another v. Union of India {2003(4) SCC 481}, it has been held that the rate fixed for smaller plots in the same vicinity can be the basis for fixation of rate for large area acquired. In the present case, there is no dispute that the said sale transaction is of the same village. It is situated in the same village having same advantage and within the reasonable time of the date of Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. In my view, the same was rightly considered by the Court below. It has come on record from the statement of PW-1 that village Nirmand is linked with Rampur via Averi. It has also come on record that as part of the package for acquisition of the land the State has earmarked area to rehabilitate the uprooted population. Undoubtedly this fact by itself would in no manner mean that the claimants should not be entitled to the fair market 7 value of the acquired land, which has to be that of the willing seller and a purchaser at the time of acquisition of the land in question. In any event, there is nothing on record to prove that the claimants were also allotted any plots. While enhancing compensation from Rs.52,500/- to Rs.60,000/-, the District Judge has held as under:- “The contention of the learned counsels for the petitioners that Collector Land Acquisition had inadequately assessed the market value of the land under acquisition is uphold because I have decided many other reference petitions, which have arisen out of the same Award qua village Averi and on the basis of sale deed filed in other Land reference petitions, the market value of the acquired land was assessed at Rs.60,000/- per Bigha irrespective of classification of land because purpose to acquire the land was same and as per Rulings of the Hon’ble Apex Court of India and the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of H.P. if the purpose to acquire the land is same, compensation should be assessed irrespective of classification of land.” The said finding is approved. I see no error in the impugned Award passed by the Court below. The claimants have been awarded compensation which is just, fair and reasonable. The entire material has been considered and appreciated correctly. I see no reason to interfere in the same. 8 No other point urged. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeals are dismissed, so also the pending application, if any. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. May 14, 2009 (rana)