IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: 1.RFA.No. 281/2004. Date of Decision:17th December,2008. State of H.P. and others. …Appellants. Versus: Krishan Dutt. …Respondent 2.RFA.No. 283/2004. State of H.P. and others. …Appellants. Versus: Sohan Lal. …Respondent 3.RFA.No. 284/2004. State of H.P. and others. …Appellants. Versus: Mohan Lal. …Respondent 4.RFA.No. 285/2004. State of H.P. and others. …Appellants. Versus: Khannu …Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting?1 For the appellants: Mr.Vivek Thakur, Addl. Advocate General. For Respondents: Mr.Rupinder Singh, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J (Oral). The present appeals arise out of the common award dated 21st May, 2004 passed by District Judge, Sirmour 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 District at Nahan, H.P. titled as Krishan Dutt Vs. State of H.P. and others enhancing the market value of the acquired land from Rs. 40,000/- per bigha for all kinds of land to Rs.1,00,000/- per bigha. For the public purpose, namely, construction of Naina Tikker-Dilman Johri Road, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmour, H.P. the claimants’ land situate in village Chhakrohg, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmour, was acquired by the State. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was issued by the State Government on 28th November, 1997 which was published in the H.P. Rajpatra on 1st September, 1998. The Collector, Land Acquisition passed Award No. 02/2002 under Section 11 of the ‘Act’ on 30th October, 2002. In terms of the said award the market value of the land was uniformly determined to be Rs. 40,000/- per bigha. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed Land Reference Petitions under Section 18 of the ‘Act’ which were referred to the District Judge for determination of the true market value of the acquired land. A tabulated chart giving details of each land owners is as under: Sr.No.& Land Name of Description of Compensation Ref.No. land owners. Land with awarded by Measurement LAC inclusive of Statutory benefits. 1. 01/03 Krishan Dutt Kh.No.31/1,32/1 Rs.1,92,919.00 3 s/o Palk Ram &29/1 measuring r/o Bagad. 2.11 bighas situate in mauza Chhakrohg. 2. 03/03 Sohan Lal Kh.Nos.43/1,47/1 Rs.4,99,322.00 s/o Sant Ram 83/1,109/1,110/3/1 r/o Chhakrohg 42/1,48/1, Teh.Pachhad. Kitas 7,measuring 6.12 bighas situate at Mauza Chhakrohg. 3. 04/03. Mohan Lal Kh.Nos.28/1,79/1, Rs.2,30,747.00 s/o Kalyan 80/1,84/1 Singh r/o measuring 3.1 bighas Chhakrohg situate in mauza Teh.Pachad Chakkrohg,Teh.Pachad. 4. 05/03. Khannu Kh.No. 251/233/1 Rs.30,262.00 s/o Nathu measuring 8 biswas r/o Chakrohg, situate in mauza Teh.Pachad. Chakrohg,Teh.Pachad. Appreciating the material on record (oral and documentary), the court below enhanced the compensation of the acquired land from Rs.40,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- per bigha. The same was done on the basis of the exemplar sale deed (Ext.P-1). The land reference petitions were consolidated by the District Judge on 24th July, 2003 and the evidence led in Land Reference Petition No. 01-LAC/4 of 2003 was directed to be considered in all the cases. In order to prove its case, the claimants examined Sh.Krishan Dutt (PW-1) and Sh.Bidhi Chand (PW-2). Sale deeds (Ext. P-1, Ext.P-2 and Ext.P-3) were tendered in evidence. The defence of the State was struck off and hence no evidence was led by the State. 4 The acquired land, as proved by PW-1, is situated at a distance of 4-5 Kms. from the place known as Naina Tikker and at a distance of 2 Kms. from Dr.Y.S.Parmar University, Solan. It is also at a distance of 2 Kms. from Dilman which is a township having the office of the S.D.O. H.P.PWD, Junior Engineer, Electricity Board, HP.PWD Rest House and other governmental institutions. Even though the notification for the acquisition of the land was issued in the year 1997 but, however, PW-1 has proved that the possession of the land was actually taken in the year 1984 by the HP. Public Works Department when the road was under construction. The acquired land had the potential to be put to commercial use, stands proved by PW-1.The State cross- examined this witness at length but, however, there is nothing on record to impeach the credibility or doubt the veracity of this statement. The claimant deposed that the value of his land is approximately Rs.25,000/- per biswas which comes to Rs.5,00,000/- per bigha. Be that as it may be the fact of the matter is that the acquired land is situated at a distance of approximately 5 Kms. from the State Highway. Naina Tikker is also situated on the State Highway. Sale deed (Ext.P-1) dated 29th March, 1997 depicts sale of two biswas of land in village Naina Chhadyar (also known as Naina Tikker) for a sum of Rs.20,000/-. In terms of the said exemplar sale deed the market value of the land comes to Rs.10,000/- per biswa as 5 Rs.2,00,000/- per bigha. The potentiality of the acquired land with that of the land situated in village Naina Tikker stands proved by PW-1 even the agriculture yield of both the lands stands proved by him. The record proves that no sale transaction took place in village Chharohg. PW-2 has also proved that the construction of the road had started in the year 1983. That the land was accessible by road at the time of the acquisition cannot be disputed. The land is not located in the remotest corner of the State. It is at a distance of only 2 Kms. from the H.P. Horticulture University, Solan which has a separate and an independent township of its own. I am of the view that the court below was right in accepting the sale deed Ext.P-1 to be the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land. However, while doing so necessary deductions, the principle of law laid down by the apex Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another, AIR 1988 SC 1652 were considered and after weighing the pros and cons necessary deduction of 50% on the exemplar sale deed price has been carried out. This has been done keeping in view the distance between the two parcels of land. An effort was made by the learned counsel for the claimant to seek further enhancement on the basis of the yearly average report (1996-97) pertaining to mauza Chakrohg whereby a sum of Rs. 2,46,750/- were determined 6 as value for the land (Oberh Khadi). I am afraid that the same cannot be looked into as the apex Court in Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and others Vs. Executive Engineer, Gujarat and another (2001) 9 SCC 584 and Special Land Acquisition Officer,Davangere Vs. P.Veeranhadarappa and others, (1984) 2 SCC 120 has held that the yearly average report is maintained for the purpose of collection of revenue under the Stamp Act. In any event, the same has not been proved in accordance with law, therefore, no further enhancement can be made. The same is in any event not warranted. There is no other evidence on record except for the sale deed Ext.P-2 (dated 7th July, 1994) and Ext.P-3 (dated 6th February, 1992) which in my view has been rightly not taken into account by the court below as there was no proximity with regard to the time of the acquisition proceedings. No other point urged. For the aforesaid reasons I find no irregularity or illegality in the impugned awards. The court below has considered the material in its entirety and the awards cannot be faulted for any reason. The appeals and the cross objections are accordingly dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. December 17, 2008(R)