IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RFA Nos. 291 and 294 of 1998. Date of decision October 31, 2008. Abhinash Chand and others …Appellants. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others…Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellants Mr. N.K.Thakur, Advocate. For respondents 1 and 2 Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. AG. For respondent No. 3. Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral). Both these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment. By an order dated 21.2.1990, both the claim petitions out of which these appeals arise, were consolidated and tried together by the learned Reference Court. The learned Court, on the evidence led by the parties, placing reliance on Exts. PC, PD and 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - PE which were sale deeds of land in proximity to and qualitatively similar to the acquired land allowed the reference petition filed by the petitioners herein increasing the compensation to be awarded for the acquired land to Rs.7900/- per Marla by averaging the sale price of all three sale deeds. The claimants are dissatisfied by the award and submit that the value of the land is more and claim Rs.25000/- per Marla because it is situated within the municipal limits, the land had been leveled for the construction of a commercial complex and was a developed piece of land having a very high commercial value. One other ground was taken and that is that the learned Reference Court was incorrect in not considering that a sum of Rs.1,52,000/- had already been spent by the claimants for leveling and developing the land which payment had been proved on record by the claimant as PW-1, PW-7 Kedar Nath and PW-13, Manager of the bank. Considering the last aspect of the matter, I find that there is force in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. It is undisputed before me that the - 3 - land was acquired for the purpose of laying a railway line. PW-1 Avinash Chander states that the land used to be a hillock of 35-40’ height, situated on the Una Hamirpur road which had been leveled by the claimants at their own costs by hiring a bulldozer from the Agriculture Department and machinery and implements from Baba Makhsudan Singh Bedi to whom a sum of Rs.1,52,000/- had been paid. He also testifies that the land was developed for setting up a commercial complex. Learned counsel submits that this payment has been admitted by PW-7 Kedar Nath who is the Mukhtiar of late Baba Makhsudan Singh Bedi, who also states that a sum of Rs.1,23,000/- remains unpaid. The claimants have proved on record Ex.PW-13/1 to Ex.PW-13/11 which are the counterfoils of the cheques showing payments to Baba Makhsudan Singh Bedi. PW-13 Shri S.K.Sharma, Assistant Manager, Punjab National Bank, Una accepts the cheque book having been issued from their bank. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants has also placed reliance on the statement of Jagdish Lal Saini, who is working as Junior Engineer in the Agriculture Department stating that a sum of Rs.20,000/- to 25,000/- had - 4 - been received by the department for leveling the land. The statement of this witness cannot be accepted, as without a proper receipt there cannot be any authenticity regarding payment of government dues. On the other aspect of cost of Rs.1,52,000/- having been incurred by the appellants herein, I find that this stands established from the evidence of three witnesses, namely PW-1, PW-7 and PW-13 and their evidence has remained unrebutted. Surely, if the amount was spent for development of the land, the claimants were entitled to this money, as otherwise such sum of money had to be spent by the acquiring department. In view of this evidence on record, this claim of the claimants-appellants requires to be granted and is accordingly allowed. On the other aspect of the matter, that is the on the value of the land, the learned reference Court placing reliance on the three sale deeds as noticed has rightly assessed the value of the land. The evidence of Harbilas PW-8 stating that he had bought 5 Marlas of land from Mangat Ram for Rs.45,000/-, Harmesh Chand PW-9 who has proved Ex.PD, sale deed dated 20.11.1981 for 5 Marlas of land for Rs.30,000/-, PW-12 Ram Pal who has proved - 5 - Ex.PE, sale deed dated 4.4.1985 for 4 Marlas of land for Rs.34,000/-, the learned Court has rightly averaged the sale price of these three sale transactions and then awarded the fair market value/compensation for the acquired land. The learned Court also holds that the land, subject matter of these sale deeds is similar to that of the acquired land. He holds that sale deeds Exts. R-1 and R-2 produced by the respondents cannot be relied upon, as there is no similarity in the land so purchased and the acquired land. Learned counsel has urged on this aspect that the learned Court was wrong in granting the average price of these three parcels of land whereas the Court should have awarded a higher sum as claimed. I am unable to persuade myself to accept this contention. The learned Court having correctly assessed the value of the land, the claimants are not entitled to any enhanced value for the land save and except the development costs as held by me. In the facts and circumstances of the case, these appeals are partly allowed. The award of the learned Court below is partly modified. The - 6 - claimants are awarded an additional sum of Rs.1,52,000/-. In addition, the claimants shall be entitled to the statutory compulsory acquisition charges and interest in accordance with law. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. October 31, 2008 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.