IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA. RFA No.103 of 1998 with Cross-Objection No.176/98 along with RFA No.107 of 1998 with Cross-Objection No.202/98, RFA No.126 of 1998 with Cross-Objection No.212/98, RFA No.77 of 1998 with Cross-Objection No.172/98, RFA No.81 of 1998 with Cross-Objection No.163/98. Judgment Reserved on:17.6.2008 Date of Decision: 30.6.2008 [ For title, please see over leaf ] ________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh,Judge Whether approved for reporting? No For the appellant: Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate vice Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate in all the appeals. For the respondents : Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1 in RFA Nos.103,107,126, 81 of 1998 and for respondents No.1(a) to 1(g) in RFA No.77 of 1998. Mr.Ansul Bansal, Addl. Advocate General, for respondents No.2 & 3. ( in all appeals) ______________________________________________________________ Kuldip Singh, J This judgment shall dispose of RFA No.103 of 1998 along with Cross-objection No.176 of 1998, RFA No.107 of 1998 along with Cross-objection No.202 of 1998, RFA No.126 of 1998 along with Cross-objection No.212 of 1998 and RFA No.77 ________________________ Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes of 1998 along with Cross-objection No.172 of 1998, RFA No.81 of 1998 along with Cross-objection No.163 of 1998 , as these appeals and Cross-objections have arisen from common award dated 1.11.1997 passed by learned District Judge, Chamba. 2. The facts in brief are that State of Himachal Pradesh for acquiring land for public purpose for construction of Chamera Dam reservoir in Mohal Rajnagar, Pargana Rajnagar,Tehsil and District Chamba issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act , 1894 ( for short Act)which was published on 6.6.1992. The Land Acquisition Collector ( for short Collector) announced the award on 31.7.1993. The details of the land, structure and compensation awarded by the Collector are mentioned in para-3 of the impugned award which are as follows:- Sr.No. Case No. and title Area of land Amount of of the petition acquired compensation awarded 1. 3/94, 1-9-0 44,216/- Raj Singh Structures 32,871 Vs. State etc. 2 1/94 1-9-0 44,216/- Daljeet Singh Structures 55,584/- Vs. NHPC etc. 3. 9/94 7-1-0 1,74,987/- Khep Singh Structures 87,627/- Vs. State etc. 4. 26/94 7-1-0 1,97,312/- Udham Singh Structures 1,71,133/- Vs. State etc. 5. 27/94, 0-17-0 20,614/- Kishni Structures 47,386/- Vs. State etc. 3. The Collector awarded compensation at different rates as per classification of land. The land owners were not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Collector, therefore, they filed reference petitions for determination of the compensation being LAC No.3/94, LAC No.1/94, LAC No.9/94, LAC 26/94, LAC No.27/94. The learned District Judge vide order dated 5.7.1995 in LAC NO.3/94 consolidated LAC No.1/94, LAC No.9/94, LAC 26/94, LAC No.27/94 with LAC No.3/94. The learned District Judge decided reference petitions being LAC No.3/94, LAC No.1/94, LAC No.9/94, LAC 26/94, LAC No.27/94. by common award dated 1.11.1997 and awarded the following compensation:- Sr. No. Case No.and title of the petition Compensation awarded by Collector Awarded by the Court Net amount of enhanced compensation 1. 3/94 Land Structures Raj Singh Vs. State etc. 44,216/- 32,871/- 64,113/- 49,306/- 19,897 16,435/- 2. 1/94 Land Structures Daljeet Singh Vs. NHPC etc. 44,216/- 55,584/- 64,113/- 83,376/- 19,897 27,792/- 3. 9/94 Land Structures Khep Singh Vs. State etc. 1,74,987/- 87,627/- 2,53,730/- 1,51,440/- 78,743/- 43,813/- 4. 26/94 Land Structures Udham Singh Vs. State etc. 1,97,312/- 1,71,133/- 2,86,102/- 2,,56,700/- 88,790/- 85,567/- 5. 27/94 Land Structures Kishni Vs. State etc. 20,614/- 47,386/- 29,890/- 71,079/- 9,276/- 23,693/- 4. The Chamera Hydro Electric Project has filed above appeals. The land owners have filed Cross-objection No.176 of 1998, Cross-objection No.202 of 1998, Cross-objection No.212 of 1998, Cross-objection No.172 of 1998, Cross-objection No.163 of 1998 in RFA No.103 of 1998, RFA No.107 of 1998, RFA No.126 of 1998 and RFA No.77 of 1998 No.172 of 1998, RFA No.81 of 1998, respectively. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. On behalf of the appellant, in each appeal, it has been submitted that learned District Judge has misconstrued, misinterpreted the material on record and has erred in relying sale deed Ex.P-1, a small area transaction for assessing the market value of large area acquired land. It has been submitted that learned District Judge has erred in enhancing the market value of the acquired land and structures over and above what was assessed by the Collector. The land owners had failed to place on record legal evidence for enhancement of compensation. The learned counsel for the respondents/Cross-objectors has supported the impugned award but simultaneously submitted that the learned District Judge has awarded less compensation to the respondents. The market value of the acquired land and structures has been assessed on the lower side. The deduction of 60% from the market value assessed on the basis of sale deed Ex.P-1 was wrongly made. The respondents are entitled to enhancement of compensation as prayed in the cross-objections. The learned counsel for the parties have jointly stated that this Court vide judgment dated 28.9.2008 has decided RFA No.66 of 1998 wherein acquisition of land for Chamera Dam reservoir in mohal Rajnagar was involved. 6. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties it is necessary to refer evidence which has come on record. PW-1 Raj Singh has stated that the land, trees and houses of the claimants were in village Thari , Mohal Rajnagar which were acquired by Chamera Hydro Electric Project. The market value of their land was at least Rs.1,00,000/- per bigha at the time of acquisition. The project people have given them Rs.27,000/- per bigha. The value of trees has been given to them as per 1966-1967 schedule rates. They had good and pucca houses. They were paid value of the houses as per 1987 schedule of rates . Rajnagar is at a distance of 18 KMs from Chamba by road and is situated on road head. Rajnagar has facilities of High school and dispensary etc. In cross-examination he has denied the suggestion that in the year 1993 the market value of the land in that area was Rs.1500/- to Rs.2000/- per bigha. He has denied that just compensation has been paid to them. PW- 2 Gurdei, Registration Clerk, Sub Registrar office, Chamba has produced on record copies of sale deeds Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2. PW- 3 Hardayal has stated that he had sold his land measuring 2 biswas to Chaffad in mohal Rajnagar for Rs.10,000/- vide sale deed ,copy Ex.P-1. In cross-examination he has stated that Chaffad had paid Rs.10,000/- to him before Tehsildar. He has denied that in order to increase the market value the sale deed was prepared. 7. PW-4 Jai Kishan, Head Draughtsman, HP.PWD, Chamba has stated that he had prepared the abstract of rates of the houses Ex.PW-4/A on the basis of schedule of rates of the year 1987 and 1993. In the year 1993 in comparison to the year 1987 the difference of rates was 161.68%. In cross-examination he has stated that he has not brought the record on the basis of which abstract of rates was prepared by him. He has stated that he has prepared the estimate on the basis of fish farm, Sultanpur building. PW-5 Krishan Chander, Senior Assistant, HP. State Forest Corporation has placed on record sale rates of timber, copies Ex.PW-5/A, Ex.PW-5/B, Ex.PW-5/C and Ex.PW-5/D. In cross-examination he has stated that the rates are for non right holders. Mr. M.P..Puri, Advocate who represented land owners before the reference Court tendered in evidence Ex.PX, Ex.PY, copies of revenue record regarding quality of land which was subject matter of the sales relied by land owners. 8. RW-1 Bahadur Singh, Assistant Second Grade has stated that the land owners who are left with less than 5 bighas after acquisition are paid Rs.20,000/- landless grant and whose house is acquired and left with no house is paid Rs.45,000/- as grant per family. Raj Singh, Daljeet Singh, Khep Singh, Udham Singh and Kishani were given landless grant and house less grant. On behalf of Collector, sale deeds Ex.R-1, Ex.R-2 were tendered , but were objected to by the opposite side . No evidence was led by Chamera Hydro Electric Project and State of H.P. respondents before the reference Court. On behalf of the Collector Ex.DX and Ex.DY, copies of revenue record concerning the sale deeds which were relied upon by the respondents in evidence were tendered. Ex.R-1 is the copy of sale deed dated 2.7.1993, Ex.R-2 is the copy of sale deed dated 9.7.1992. This is the entire evidence led by the parties. 9. The sale deed Ex.P-1 dated 4.2.1988, sale deed Ex.P-2 dated 15.1.1991, sale deed Ex.R-1 dated 2.7.1993 , sale deed Ex.R-2 dated 9.7.1992 have been placed on record. The sale deeds Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2 are of the period after the publication of notification under Section 4 dated 6.6.1992. It is quite possible that the sale deeds Ex.R-1, Ex.R-2 were executed by the people in that area after having come to know that the land was being acquired for Chamera Dam Reservoir in mohal Rajnagar and in adjoining area. In these circumstances, it is quite possible that sale deeds Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2 do not reflect actual market price of the land which was prevailing in the area at the time of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act on 6.6.1992. The possibility can not be ruled out that sale deeds Ex.R-1, Ex.R-2 are the out come of distress sale, therefore, sale deeds Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2 are not relevant for assessing the market value of the acquired land. The sale deed Ex.P-2 is dated 15.1.1991 but neither the vendor nor the vendee of this sale deed has been examined. In addition to this land covered by sale deed Ex.P-2 has not been compared with the acquired land by leading evidence nor there is any evidence on record to show the potentiality of the two sets of lands. 10. The sale deed Ex.P-1 is dated 4.2.1988 vide which 2 biswas of land was sold for a consideration of Rs.10,000/- in mohal Rajnagar. PW-3 vendor of sale deed Ex.P-1 has stated that he had received Rs.10,000/- from vendee Chaffad before Tehsildar. This sale deed was executed on 4.2.1988 and the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 6.6.1992. There is nothing on record to show that this sale deed is not genuine. The objection of the learned counsel for the appellant is that sale deed Ex.P-1 is small area transaction and therefore, it cannot be relied for determination of market value of the acquired land which is large area. In Ravinder Narain and another vs. Union of India, 2003 (4) SCC 481 and Rishi Pal Singh and others vs. Meerut Development Authority and another 2006 (3) SCVC 205, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it cannot be laid down as an absolute proposition that the rates fixed for the small plots cannot be the basis for fixation of the rate, if there is no material, it is open to the Court in appropriate cases to make comparison of the prices paid for small plots of the land . However, in such cases, necessary deductions/adjustments have to be made while determining the prices. There is no bar for considering exemplars of small plots. No doubt sale deed Ex.P-1 is small area transaction but the parties have led no other reliable evidence on record for assessing the market value of the acquired land. The appellant had equal responsibility to bring on record the relevant evidence for assessing the market value of the acquired land so that just compensation is assessed. In these circumstances, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravinder Narain and Rishi Pal Singh cases supra, the sale deed Ex.P-1 can be relied for assessing the market value of the acquired land but after making suitable deduction. 11. On the basis of sale deed Ex.P-1 the market value of the acquired land comes at Rs.1,00,000/- per bigha. The learned District Judge had made 60% deduction from such market value and then assessed the market value of Barani Awal land in mohal Rajnagar at Rs.40,000/- per bigha . The Collector had assessed the market value of Barani Awal land at Rs.27,590/- per bigha. In my opinion in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned District Judge has rightly assessed the market value of acquired land at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per bigha after making deduction of 60% from the market value assessed on the basis of sale deed Ex.P-1. 12. The Collector had assessed the market value of Barani Awal land at Rs.27,590/- per bigha and the learned District Judge has assessed the market value of the Barani Awal land at Rs.40,000/- per bigha. In this way, the learned District Judge has given increase of 45% on the rate of Barani Awal land as assessed by the Collector. The learned District Judge has held that the market value of other kinds of land can be assessed on the basis of the said analogy i.e. other types of lands are also to be given increase of 45% over the rate assessed by Collector. In this way no fault can be found with the market value assessed by the learned District Judge for acquired land as per classification. This Court has already approved the market value at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per bigha of Barani Awal land in mohal Rajnagar in RFA No.66 of 1998 decided on 28.9.2007 which was also acquired for Chamera Dam reservoir on the basis of notification under Section 4 of the Act published on 6.6.1992 as in the present case. Therefore, no fault can be found with the market value of the acquired land assessed by learned District Judge in the impugned award. 13. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that learned District Judge has erred in giving 50% increase for structures . The learned District Judge in para13 of the impugned award has observed that Chamera Project has admitted that while awarding compensation in respect of the structures 1987 schedule of rates was applied The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 6.6.1992. The Collector made the award on 31.7.1993. It is common knowledge that prices had increased many times from 1987 to 1992 . The compensation some time is to be assessed on the basis of conjectures and guess work keeping in view the grounds realities and facts and circumstances of the case. The land owners led some evidence regarding their structures but that evidence is not sufficient to assess the market value of the structures, therefore, the learned District Judge has rightly adopted the method for giving 50% increase for assessing the market value of the structures over 1987 schedule of rates. The 50% increase over 1987 schedule of rates for structures has been approved by this Court in RFA No.66 of 1998 decided on 28.9.2007. 14. On behalf of the Cross-Objectors , it has been submitted that the land owners have been given less compensation for land and structures. The learned District Judge has wrongly made deduction of 60% from the market value assessed on the basis of sale deed Ex.P-1. The market value of the land and structures as determined by learned District Judge has already been discussed above and found to be just and reasonable and therefore, the land owners are not entitled to any increase for land and structures. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that learned District Judge has not taken into account compensation for standing crops which were destroyed. The land owners have led no evidence for loss to their standing crops as alleged by them, therefore, the respondents are not entitled to any compensation on account of alleged damage to the crops. The respondents have also raised grievance regarding the compensation for the trees, which according to them were assessed on the basis of 1966-67 schedule of rates. The respondents raised no grievance with respect to trees before the reference Court at the time of hearing which is clear from the impugned award in as much as there is no reference of such grievance in the impugned award. It means the respondents had never pressed their alleged grievance with respect to trees before learned District Judge. Now in appeal they cannot be permitted to raise that grievance. Moreover, the respondents have led no evidence with respect to claim of compensation for fruit and non fruit trees . Therefore, they are not entitled to enhancement of compensation for fruit and non fruit trees. In fact the respondents had raised their grievance with respect to the market value of the land and structures only before the learned District Judge. The respondents for their other claims led no evidence and therefore, the respondents are not entitled to any compensation regarding their other claims. The award of the learned District Judge with respect to land and structures has already been upheld. The respondents are not entitled to enhancement of compensation as claimed by them in the cross-objections. 15. The learned District Judge has rightly appreciated the material on record and has drawn proper inference from the evidence on record. The learned District Judge has rightly awarded other statutory payments and interest which also do not require any interference. The appellant as well as respondents in cross-objections have failed to make out any case in their favour. The impugned award is just and reasonable. 16. No other point was urged. 17. The result of the above discussion, all appeals being RFA No.103 of 1998 along with Cross-objection No.176 of 1998, RFA No.107 of 1998 along with Cross-objection No.202 of 1998, RFA No.126 of 1998 along with Cross-objection No.212 of 1998 and RFA No.77 of 1998 along with Cross-objection No.172 of 1998, RFA No.81 of 1998 along with Cross-objection No.163 of 1998 are dismissed and award dated 1.11.1997 passed by learned District Judge Chamba in each appeal and cross-objection is upheld. No costs. ( Kuldip Singh) Judge June 30, 2008 (sks)