IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No.115 of 1999 Date of Decision: 18th May, 2009 Shri Gopal Singh Thakur Petitioner Versus L.A.C. and others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner: Mr.J.S.Bhogal, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Suneet Goel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.R.K.Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Vivek Thakur, Addl. Advocate General. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner has assailed the award dated 7.12.1998 passed by District Judge, Shimla, in Land Reference Petition No. 31-S/4 of 1996, titled as Gopal Singh vs. State and others. For the public purpose, namely, extension of Housing Board Colony, Shimla, petitioner’s land comprising Khasra No.121, 123, measuring 8-12 Bighas, situated in Village Kasumpti-Koti (Straw Berry Hills), Tehsil and District Shimla, was acquired by the State for the H.P. Housing Board. Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1854 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued on 1.2.1991 which was published in the H.P. Rajpatra on 2.3.1991. The Collector, Land Acquisition passed his award No.4/91 dated 15.3.1996, under Section 11 of the Act, by determining the market value of the acquired land to be Rs.3,11,521.80 paise per Bigha and awarded the compensation in terms thereof. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed Land Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Act. Based on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector is inadequate, if so, what is the just and adequate compensation? OPP. 2. What are the respective shares of the petitioner and respondents No.2 to 7 in the acquired property and how the compensation money is required to be apportioned among them? OPP. 3. Relief. Opportunity to lead evidence was afforded to the parties. Claimant examined Shri H.N.Kashyap, (PW-1), Shri Mohinder Singh (PW-2), Shri Gopal Singh (PW-3) and proved on record copy of the proposal Annexure PA, on which the Collector’s award was based and the statement of average price maintained by the revenue department of the State (Ext.PB). In rebuttal, the respondents examined Shri Rajnish Kumar (RW-1), Shri Ashok Gupta (RW-2), Shri Mohinder Singh (RW-3) and Shri 3 Ravinder Chadha (RW-4) and proved on record copy of sale deed (Ext.R-1), map (Ext.R-2) alongwith certified copy of mutation (Ext.RW-3/A) and also another sale deed (Ext.RW-4/A). Appreciating the material on record (oral and documentary), the Court below came to the conclusion that the Collector had correctly assessed the market value and the claimant could not prove that the market value of the acquired land was in fact higher than the compensation awarded by the Collector. The annual average price maintained by the respondent- State (Ext.PB) as also the copy of proposal (Ext.PA) were not considered for the reason that they did not reflect the true market value of the acquired land. Sale deed proved on record by the respondent-State were discounted for the reason that the market value in terms thereof, was much lower than what was assessed and awarded by the Collector himself. With regard to the compensation for trees on the acquired land, the Court found that there was no cogent and reliable evidence to support the claimant’s contention. Mr.Bhogal, learned senior counsel has referred to and relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Land Acquisition Officer vs. Ramanjuhu and others, (2005) 9 SCC 594, to contend that since the Housing Board colony was already in existence, hence no development work was required to be carried out on the acquired land which was acquired only for the extension of the said housing project. According to him, the deduction of 30% towards developmental charges, as carried out by the Collector is much on the higher side and needs to be reduced. I have perused the record. In terms of the Collector’s Award No.4/91, the market value has been determined on the basis of sale transactions which took place 4 between 14.3.1990 upto 13.3.1991. The average assessment of the land was Rs.21,02,771.60 per Bigha for cultivable land and Rs.3,11,521.80 per Biswa per Bigha for uncultivable land. The petitioner’s land undisputedly is of Banjar category which is uncultivable. The Collector in fact did not carry out any deduction towards developmental charges. The relevant portion of the award is reproduced as under:- “All available land transactions pertaining to land relevant in context of the proposed land during the proceeding year from the date of last publication of notification under section-4, were considered as supplied by the Tehsildar (Urban) Shimla for the Revenue Estate Kasumpti-Koti. These sale transactions reflect the true market value relevant for determining the market value as per the provisions of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. For the purpose of determining market value the following sale deeds were taken into consideration, which were transacted during the period of one year preceeding the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act proclaimed on 15.3.91 in the locality by proclamation according to traditional methods and which is deemed to be the relevant rate for the determination of market value. Hence the transactions of sales between 14.3.90 to 13.3.91 were taken into consideration vide which 2-2 bigha Gair Majrua land was sold for Rs.6,61,500/- vide mutation No.236 dated 24.3.90 and 0-4 Biswas Ghasni land was sold for Rs.55,000/- only vide mutation No.248 dated 7.12.90. The average according to assessment of land revenue comes to Rs.21,02,771.60 per bigha for cultivated land and Rs.3,11,521.80 paise per Bigha for un-cultivated land. The land in question is situated at Straw-Barri Hill (Kasumpti-Koti), which is in Municipal limits. The land being sold in the vicinity is for construction purpose whether it is cultivated or un-cultivated. Therefore the rates can be 5 determined on the basis of assessment of land revenue. The flat rate of the area comes to Rs.15,576.09 paise per biswa and Rs.3,11,521.80 paise per Bigha which I found quite genuine and reasonable for awarding compensation in the case as a flat rate for every classification of land. This rate has been got approved by the District Collector, Shimla vide his office letter No.SML-SR-Misc.(237)/89-596 dated 10.10.95. I therefore, award a sum of Rs.3,11,521.80 paise per Bigha for every classification of land being acquired by the H.P. Housing Board.” Hence, the contention of the learned senior counsel is misconceived. No deduction, at all, has been made by the Collector towards the development charges. The challenge to the impugned award is not for the reason that the Court below has discarded the evidence justifying further enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Collector. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in the aforesaid appeal and the same is dismissed. 18th May, 2009 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.