IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No. 227 of 2004 alongwith Cross-Objections No. 256 of 2004 Date of Decision: 21st November, 2008 State of Himachal Pradesh and another Appellants Versus Shri Durga Ram Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Mr.R.K.Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Vivek Thakur, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.B.S.Kanwar, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The present appeal arises out of award dated 5.12.2003 passed by the District Judge, Shimla, in Land Ref. No. 5-S/4 of 2000, titled as Shri Durga Ram vs. State of H.P. and another. For the public purpose, namely construction of Shogi-Salana road, claimant-respondent’s land measuring 16 Biswas, comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No.33/65, Khasra No.297/1, situated at Mauja Pawar, Pargana Khushala, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P., was acquired vide Notification published on 20.2.1999 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1857 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In terms of award No.7/99 dated 27.9.1999, the Land Acquisition Collector, awarded compensation to the claimant @ Rs.4,741.20/- per Bigha for “Ghasni”, the category of the land in question. Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 Being dissatisfied with the Award, claimant filed a petition under Section 18 of the Act claiming enhancement of compensation @ Rs. 10 lacs per Bigha. In all the claimants examined four witnesses, namely, Shri Durga Ram (PW-1), Shri Ram Sarup (PW-2), Shri Sheesh Ram, Patwari (PW-3) and Shri Inder Khachi, Patwari (PW-4), who have proved the sale deed Ext.P-4. The claimants also placed on record copies of the awards Ext.P-5 and Ext.P-6 passed by the District Judge, Shimla, in land Reference Petitions arising out of the acquisition proceedings pertaining to the very same public purpose. The respondents in rebuttal examined Shri Shish Ram (RW- 1), who has proved the letter dated 16.9.1999 approving the rates recommended by the Collector, in terms of which Award No.7 of 1999 pertaining to the acquisition proceedings in question was passed. Appreciating the material on record, on the basis of Ext.P-5 and Ext.P-6 the Court below enhanced the compensation of the acquired land from Rs.4741.20 per Bigha to Rs.1,50,000/- per Bigha. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Sale deed Ext.R-2 tendered in evidence by the respondent- State and Sale deed Ext.P-4 proved on record by the claimant have not been considered by the Court below for the simple reason that they belong to different village. Both the sale deeds pertain to Village Panog of the same Pargana Khushala, Tehsil and District Shimla. Sale deed Ext.P-4 depicts sale of land in the year 1989 at the rate of Rs.4 lacs per Bigha, whereas sale deed Ext.R-2 depicts sale of land in the year 1997 to be about @ Rs.8000/- per Bigha. There is nothing on record to prove the similarity in the land between the exemplar sale deeds with that of the acquired land. Whether 3 the sale deed Ext.R-2 depicts true market value cannot be ascertained from the record as the same has not been proved by examining the vendor or the vendee, whereas sale deed Ext.P-4 stands proved by Shri Ram Swaroop (PW-2). Be that as it may be, if both the sale deeds were to be taken into consideration then the mean of the two would work out to be much more than what has been determined by the Court below and awarded to the claimants. Award Ext.P-5 dated 26.5.2000 passed by the Additional District Judge, Shimla, pertains to the execution of the land in Mauja Gavahi, Pargana Khushala. In terms of the said award the land was acquired, for the very same public purpose, in the year 1983 and Rs.1,50,000/- per Bigha was assessed as the market value of the acquired land. The said award has been upheld by this Court in RFA No.130 of 2003, titled as State of H.P. vs. Leela Dutt and another. Award Ext.PX dated 10.3.1995 also passed by the Additional District Judge, Shimla, pertains to the land situate in Villages Batnala, Panog and Ganeri, which was also acquired for the very same public purpose in the year 1983 wherein also a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- per Bigha was awarded. The common case of the parties is that this Award was interfered by this Court in RFA No.195 of 19095, titled as State of H.P. vs. Het Ram and the compensation was reduced from Rs.1,50,000/- per Bigha to Rs.90,000/- per Bigha, but, however, an appeal SLP (Civil) CC 3034- 3035 of 2004, filed by the claimants, is pending before the Apex Court. As such, this award cannot be considered. Durga Ram (PW-1) has deposed that the acquired land is at a distance of 100 mts. from the National Highway and is in close proximity of the Industrial Area, Shogi. The acquired land was admittedly 4 approachable by road. It has come on record that the possession of the acquired land was actually taken much prior to the issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act and the Government did not take any steps to pay the compensation to the claimants in accordance with law. The poor claimant, who had been deprived of his Constitutional right was left with no option but to file a writ petition before this Court and it was only after this Court passed order dated 5.10.1998 that the acquisition proceedings were initiated. In Award Ext.P-5 the rates have been applied uniformly regardless of the category and classification of land. In the present case, the land acquired is of category Ghasni. No doubt the same could not be put to an agriculture use, but, however, its potentiality of being put to commercial use, in view of its close proximity with the Industrial township of Shogi and the National Highway No. 21 cannot be doubted. In terms of Award Ext.P-5, compensation was awarded for the acquisition proceedings pertaining to the year 1983, whereas in the instant case the acquisition commenced in the year 1999. It is true that there is nothing on record to prove the similarity between the two lands, but, however, one cannot loose sight of the fact that there has been an overall trend in the increase of the prices and award Ext.P-5 is only depictive of the prevailing prices in and around the area in question. Further in the year 1983 the road had not been constructed whereas in the year 1999, the area adjoining to the acquired land was fully developed and approachable by all means, which is evident from the deposition of PW-1 and Shri Inder Singh, Patwari (PW-4). There is some contradiction with regard to the actual distance of the acquired land from the National Highway No.21, but, there is no dispute with regard to the locational advantage of the acquired land. 5 Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that in Shogi, which is a commercial hub, on the National Highway, H.P. Housing Board has also set up a housing colony, which is in existence much prior to the year 1999 and the State had also developed elaborate infrastructure for development of the Industrial township at Shogi. The market value of the acquired land has to be determined keeping in view the various factors repeatedly laid down by the Apex Court in its various judicial pronouncements. It has come on record that 16 Biswas of land on which road was constructed actually runs through the entire land holding of the claimant, thus, dividing the land into two parts. In my view, the benefit of award Ext.P-5 has been rightly extended to the claimant. I find no error in the market value determined by the Court below. The entire material has been considered and the evidence has been correctly appreciated. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal and cross-objections are dismissed. Needless to add that the claimant is entitled to compensation in accordance with the principles of law laid down in Sunder v. Union of India, reported in (2001) 7 SCC 211. 21st November, 2008 (Sanjay Karol), (C) Judge.