HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No. 119 of 2000 Reserved on: 20.10.2010 Decided on: 12.11.2010 Puran Singh through LRs Gauri Devi and others ……Appellants. Versus Land Acquisition Collector and others ……Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellants: Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr.B.C. Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. V.K. Ahuja, J.: This is an appeal filed by the appellants under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (here-in-after referred to as ‘the Act’) against the award, dated 30.11.1999, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, H.P., vide which, he allowed the reference petition filed by the appellants under Section 18 of the Act and enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per bigha irrespective of the category of land and solatium etc. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the land of the appellants was acquired by the State of H.P. for the construction of Solan-Jaunaji road. The road passes through the lands of village Kothi, District Solan, H.P. ______________________________ Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - The notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 22.10.1981. The collector entered into a reference and passed the award on 28.7.1986. A reference petition was filed under Section 18 of the Act and the learned Additional District Judge, vide his impugned award allowed the petition and enhanced the compensation from Rs.1225/-, to Rs.25,000/- per bigha irrespective of the category of land, alongwith solatium etc. as per the Act. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants were that the compensation awarded by the learned Additional District Judge was inadequate and the appellants were entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.45,000/- per bigha. It was also submitted that subsequent to the issuance of the notification in this case, further land was also acquired for the same purpose vide notification dated 25.2.1989 and the compensation has been awarded now at the rate of Rs.45,000/- per bigha and keeping in view the subsequent judgment of this Court, dated 31.7.2009, in regard to the land acquired for the same purpose, which passes through 10 villages, the compensation be enhanced to Rs.45,000/- per bigha. 5. On the other hand, Mr.J.S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General for the respondents, had submitted that adequate compensation has been awarded in favor of the appellants and keeping in view the subsequent award, the compensation cannot be enhanced since the said - 3 - notification was issued after about 8 years of the issuance of the notification in the present case and as such the judgment passed by this Court enhancing the award cannot be looked into. 6. On appraisal of the record of the case, it is clear that the appellants had proved number of sale deeds during the trial of the case, but most of the sale deeds are pertaining to the dates after the issuance of the notification on 22.10.1981 or after the award was passed by the Collector on 28.7.1986 and as such it was submitted by the learned Assistant Advocate General for the respondents that these sale deeds are not relevant for the determination of the market value on the date of issuance of the notification in the year 1981. A brief reference is, therefore, being made to the sale deeds since most of the sale deeds pertain to the period after 1981: Sale deed Dated Area Amount Ext.PA 24.3.1988 1 biswa Rs.7,000/- Ext.PB 9.2.1988 1 biswa Rs.1,200/- Ext.PC 28.7.1986 1 biswa Rs.10,000/- Ext.PD 21.5.1987 2 biswa Rs.5,000/- Ext.PE 12.2.1987 1 biswa Rs,5,000/- Ext.PF 29.8.1986 1 biswa Rs.10,000/- Ext.PG 28.7.1986 1 biswa Rs.10,000/- Ext.PH 12.2.1987 1 biswa Rs.5,000/- Ext.PJ 30.1.1987 2 biswa Rs.9,500/- Ext.PK 18.10.1986 0-1 biswa Rs.9,500/- - 4 - Ext.PL 30.9.1986 0-1 biswa Rs.9,500/- Ext.PM 5.12.1979 0-3 biswa Rs.2,500/- Ext.PN 24.3.1988 1 biswa Rs.7,000/- Ext.PO 31.10.1986 1-7 biswa Rs.5,000/- Ext.PP 10.7.1980 2 biswa Rs.2,000/- 7. In view of the fact that most of these sale deeds pertain to the period subsequent to the issuance of the notification and the award passed by the Collector, these cannot be termed as material for the determination of the market value on the date of issuance of the notification in the year 1981. Some of the sale deeds are of the earlier period but the rate granted is much less than what was granted by the learned trial Court. Some other documents have also been placed on record but no material document was pointed out during the course of arguments which can be considered as relevant for determination of the market value on the date of issuance of notification and as such they are not being referred to. Therefore, it has to be considered as to whether there are any bases for enhancing the compensation as urged by the learned counsel for the appellants. It is no ground to enhance the compensation as awarded subsequently when the land was acquired for the same purpose and as such this plea of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted that the petitioners be granted compensation as awarded for the land acquired subsequently at the rate of Rs.45,000/- per bigha. A copy of the judgment passed in RFA - 5 - No.9 of 1999 and other connected matters has been placed on record, vide which the appeals were decided pertaining to the award passed subsequent to the issuance of the present notification. An unattested copy of the said judgment of this Court has been filed which shows that the compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.45,000/- per bigha. 8. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that there is no basis to hold that the compensation awarded by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan deserves to be enhanced for which there is no material on record and, therefore, the compensation awarded can be said to be just and reasonable and it calls for no interference by this Court. 9. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant and the same stands dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. November 12, 2010. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.