IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No.464/2010 alongwith CMPMO Nos.465 and 469 of 2010 and 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25 of 2011 Decided on:25.11.2011 _____________________________________________ 1. CMPMO No. 464/2010 H.P.S.E.B. …Petitioner. Versus 1. Guddi Devi wife of Sh. Jai Chand, resident of Thalaut, Sub Tehsil Aut, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. …Respondent. 2. Land Acquisition Collector, H.P.S.E.B. Mandi, H.P. …Proforma respondent 2. CMPMO No. 465/2010 H.P.S.E.B. …Petitioner. Versus 1. Sita Devi wife of Sh. Kishan Singh, resident of Thalaut, Tehsil Aut, District Mandi, H.P. …Respondent. 2. Land Acquisition Collector, H.P.S.E.B. Mandi, H.P. …Proforma respondent 3. CMPMO No. 469/2010 H.P.S.E.B. …Petitioner. Versus 1. Smt. Dhalu Devi wd/o Sh. Het Ram, resident of Thalaut, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. …Respondent. 2. Land Acquisition Collector, H.P.S.E.B. Mandi, H.P. …Proforma respondent. 2 4. CMPMO No. 2/2011 H.P.S.E.B. …Petitioner. Versus 1. Basanta Singh son of Sh. Dharmu, resident of Thalaut, Sub Tehsil Aut, District Mandi, H.P. …Respondent. 2. Land Acquisition Collector, H.P.S.E.B. Mandi, H.P. …Proforma respondent 5. CMPMO No. 4/2011 H.P.S.E.B. …Petitioner. Versus 1. Kanta Devi wd/o Sh. Mohar Singh 2. Khavinder Kumar 3. Dev Raj 4. Jagdish Respondents No. 2 to 4 minor son of Sh. Mohar Singh through their next friend and natural guardian mother Kanta Devi, all resident of Thalaut, Sub Tehsil Aut District Mandi, H.P. …Respondents. 5. Land Acquisition Collector, H.P.S.E.B. Mandi, H.P. …Proforma respondent. 6. CMPMO No. 8/2011 H.P.S.E.B. …Petitioner. Versus 1. Prem Singh son of Sh. Mani Ram, resident of Thalaut, Sub Tehsil Aut, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. …Respondent. 2. Land Acquisition Collector, H.P.S.E.B. Mandi, H.P. …Proforma respondent 7. CMPMO No. 9/2011 H.P.S.E.B. …Petitioner. Versus 1. Bhima Ram son of Sh. Mohan Lal, resident of Chatyogi, P.O. Thalaut, Tehsil Aut, District Mandi, H.P. …Respondent. 2. Land Acquisition Collector, H.P.S.E.B. Mandi, H.P. …Proforma respondent 3 8. CMPMO No. 10/2011 H.P.S.E.B. …Petitioner. Versus 1. Sh. Charan Dass son of Sh. Tula Ram resident of Thalout, Sud Tehsil Aut, District Mandi, H.P. …Respondent. 2. Land Acquisition Collector, H.P.S.E.B. Mandi, H.P. …Proforma respondent 9. CMPMO No. 14/2011 H.P.S.E.B. …Petitioner. Versus 1. Rattan Chand son of Shri Tula Ram, resident of Thalaut, Tehsil Aut, District Mandi, H.P. …Respondent. 2. Land Acquisition Collector, H.P.S.E.B. Mandi, H.P. …Proforma respondent 10. CMPMO No. 15/2011 H.P.S.E.B. …Petitioner. Versus 1. Bhagat Ram son of Dummu, resident of Thalaut, Tehsil Aut, District Mandi, H.P. …Respondent. 2. Land Acquisition Collector, H.P.S.E.B. Mandi, H.P. …Proforma respondent 11. CMPMO No. 17/2011 H.P.S.E.B. …Petitioner. Versus 1. Nika Ram son of Moti Ram, resident of Sarli, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P …Respondent. 2. Land Acquisition Collector, H.P.S.E.B. Mandi, H.P. …Proforma respondent 12. CMPMO No. 18/2011 H.P.S.E.B. …Petitioner. Versus 1. Smt. Sakuntla Devi daughter of Sh. Ranchu Ram, resident of Thalaut, Illaqua Sanor, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. …Respondent. 4 2. Land Acquisition Collector, H.P.S.E.B. Mandi, H.P. …Proforma respondent 13. CMPMO No. 19/2011 H.P.S.E.B. …Petitioner. Versus 1. Satya Devi wife of Sh. Tek Singh, resident of Thalaut, Tehsil Aut, District Mandi, H.P. …Respondent. 2. Land Acquisition Collector, H.P.S.E.B. Mandi, H.P. …Proforma respondent 14. CMPMO No. 20/2011 H.P.S.E.B. …Petitioner. Versus 1. Kishori Lal son of Sh. Amer Singh, resident of Thalaut, Sub Tehsil Aut, District Mandi, H.P. …Respondent. 2. Land Acquisition Collector, H.P.S.E.B. Mandi, H.P. …Proforma respondent 15. CMPMO No. 21/2011 H.P.S.E.B. …Petitioner. Versus 1. Ramesh Kumar Malhotra son of Sh. Kishan Chand, resident of Thalaut, Illaqua Sanor, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. …Respondent. 2. Land Acquisition Collector, H.P.S.E.B. Mandi, H.P. …Proforma respondent 16. CMPMO No. 14/2011 H.P.S.E.B. …Petitioner. Versus 1. Kishan Singh son of Sh. Sunder Singh, resident of Thalaut, Tehsil Aut, District Mandi, H.P. …Respondent. 2. Land Acquisition Collector, H.P.S.E.B. Mandi, H.P. …Proforma respondent 17. CMPMO No. 24/2011 H.P.S.E.B. …Petitioner. Versus 1. Jhaba Ram son of Sh. Led Ram, resident of Dalashani, Phati Rot, Kothi Bhallan, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. …Respondent. 5 2. Land Acquisition Collector, H.P.S.E.B. Mandi, H.P. …Proforma respondent. 18. CMPMO No. 25/2011 H.P.S.E.B. …Petitioner. Versus 1. Smt. Chandi Devi wd/o late Sh. Pritam Singh 2. Kamal Jeet 3. Chita Pal Singh 4. Miss Pooja 5. Miss Vandna, all through their natural guardian mother Smt. Chandi Devi. All are minor son and daughter of late Sh. Pritam Singh, all resident of Thalaut, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. …Respondents. 6. Land Acquisition Collector, H.P.S.E.B. Mandi, H.P. …Proforma respondent Petition(s) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes (in all the petitions) For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Trilok Jamwal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Nemo. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these petitions, the same are taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 6 2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of all these petitions are that notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 5.2.1988. Notifications under sections 6 and 7 were issued on 27.8.1988. The Land Acquisition Collector, after considering the claims and the evidence produced before him, assessed the market value of the acquired land. The Land Collector has assessed the market value of Barani Awal ` 18,106/-, Barani Dom ` 13,577/- and Kharyatar ` 3,771/-. He has assessed the market value of 21 houses/structures and compensation of ` 6,95,081/- was awarded for acquisition of the houses. The Collector has got the value of 743 fruit bearing trees and 133 non-fruit bearing trees standing on the acquired land assessed from the Horticulture and Forest Departments and compensation of ` 22,598/- was awarded. In addition thereto, the Land Acquisition Collector also awarded compensation for loss of earning to Sh. Mohar Singh on account of closure of his 6 handloom units to the tune of ` 12,900/- and to Sh. Lalman on account of closure of his tailoring shop to the tune of ` 6,300/-. The Collector, Land Acquisition also awarded compulsory acquisition charges at the rate of 30% and additional acquisition charges at the rate of 12% for the period 30.4.1988 to 6.10.1990. 3. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the land owners preferred petition to the 7 Land Acquisition Collector, who after verifying the same, made reference to the learned District Judge, Mandi for determination of amount of compensation. Case of the respondents - land owners before the learned District Judge was that the market value of the land was ` 3,00,000/- per bigha. The land situated on Chandigarh-Manali National Highway and was suitable for shops and houses. The market value of the structures and trees has also not been assessed properly and the compensation for loss of earning and shifting has not been paid in accordance with law. 4. The petition was contested by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, adequate compensation has been paid by the Land Acquisition Collector for the land acquired and for the structure and trees standing thereon and also for the loss of business and goodwill. Vide order dated 5.9.2003, learned District Judge, consolidated all the 51 petitions with reference No. 56/2002 titled as Mohinder Pal versus Collector. Issues were framed by the learned District Judge. 5. Ordinarily, the petitioner was required to file Regular First Appeal in this case; however, it has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the enhanced amount is very meagre. However, despite the amount being meagre, this Court has gone into the entire gamut whether the amount awarded to the respondents is in accordance with law or not. 8 6. PW-4 Mohinder Pal has proved Ex.PW-4/C, copy of sale deed dated 23.10.1987 whereby 0-1-5 bighas of land situated at Mauja Thalaut was sold by Sh. Lajje Ram to Mohinder Pal for ` 10,000/-, i.e. @ ` 8,000/- per biswa. According to him, the market value of the land was ` 3 lakhs per bigha. The acquired land is suitable for commercial and tourism purpose being close to Kullu and Manali. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the land of adjoining Muhals Aut and Khamrada had been acquired before this acquisition. PW-5 Puran Chand, PW-6 Brij Lal, PW-7 Lajje Ram, PW-8 Surajmani, PW-9 Sher Singh and PW-12 Pyare Singh are residents of Thalaut. They have testified that the acquired land was situated on the National Highway and was useful for commercial and tourism purpose. PW-11 Puran Chand has testified that his father Sh. Bala Ram has sold land in the year 1988 for consideration of ` 10,000/- per biswa as per sale deed Ex.PW-11/A (copy Ex.P-3). One of the respondents Bali Bhadar has also sold land measuring 4 biswas situate at Thalaut to Karam Singh etc. for ` 40,000/-, i.e. ` 10,000/- per biswa as per Ex.PW-11/C. The copy of the sale deed is dated 30.1.1988 Ex.P-1. The copy of the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi whereby the market value of the land situated at Khamrada acquired for the construction of Larji Hydel Project has been assessed at ` 1,60,000/- per bigha. Ex.PW-4/B is the copy of award dated 20.3.1997. Petitioner 9 has placed reliance on Ex.R-1 in respect of land measuring 0-12-12 bighas sold for ` 6,000/- and Ex.R-2 sale instance of 0-13-0 bighas situated at Thalaut sold for ` 5,000/- on 15.2.1984 and 24.2.1984, respectively. 7. The learned District Judge after discussing the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record, including the sale deeds and award, has come to a conclusion that the value of the land was ` 1,60,000/- per bigha irrespective of classification. He has primarily relied upon Ex.PW-4/D dated 18.3.1987 and award Ex.PW-4/A dated 20.1.2001 passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi. The learned District has correctly determined the value of the acquired land. He has awarded due compensation for the structure/houses. The land owners have relied upon the statements of PW-2 Tantri Dev Sharma and PW-3 Malkiyat Singh Garcha, retired S.D.O. The valuation of the houses and structures by the petitioner was made on the basis of schedule of rates of Himachal Pradesh in the year 1987. The notification for acquisition of land has been issued in the year 1988. The District Judge has held the respondents entitled to increased compensation of houses and structures to the extent of 10%. 8. As far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, the learned District Judge has relied upon Sardar Harbans Singh’s formula for assessment of compensation for fruit bearing and non-fruit bearing trees, which was evolved in 10 the year 1966. The notification for the acquisition of land was issued in the year 1988. The index has gone upto 402. In these circumstances, the respondents have been held to four times increase in the market value of the fruit bearing trees assessed by the Collector on the basis of Harbans Singh formula. The learned District Judge has also awarded few of the respondents amount on account of goodwill/displacement after taking into consideration the oral as well as documentary evidence. In totality, the learned District Judge has enhanced the compensation to ` 1,60,000/- per bigha. The respondents have been held entitled to enhancement at the rate of 10% on the market value assessed. They have also been awarded compensation on account of loss of business and goodwill. The statutory benefits accruing to the respondents have also been correctly awarded. 9. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in these petitions and the same are dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 25.11.2011 *awasthi*