IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA No. 127 of 2006 Date of decision: 7.7.2009 Smt. Chander Prabha Batta ……………Appellant Versus Land Acquisition Collector & Anr. ……………Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, J. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the appellant : Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Additional A.G. and Mr. J.S. Rana, Dy. A.G. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The claimant/appellant has assailed the impugned award dated 28th of November 2005, passed by District Judge, Solan, H.P., in Land Reference Petition No. 6-S/4 of 2004, titled as Smt. Chander Prabha Batta vs. Land Acquisition Collector and another. For the public purpose, namely construction of road for Industrial Estate by the Industries Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was issued by the Government on 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 4.8.2003, which was published in the H.P. Rajpatra on 23rd of August, 2003. Collector Land Acquisition passed his award No. 1/2003 on 31st March, 2004. In terms of the award, the Collector awarded the compensation of the acquired land by determining the market value of the land to be Rs. 1000/- per square meter. The appellants’ total land measuring 195 square meters, situated in village Basal-Patti-Kather, Tehsil Solan was acquired. Aggrieved of the same, the claimant filed a land reference petition under Section 18 of the Act. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Court below framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector is inadequate and the petitioner is entitled to enhanced compensation, if so, how much and at what rate? OPP. 2. Relief. Opportunity to lead evidence was afforded to the parties and based on the material on record, the court below enhanced the compensation by determining the market value of the acquired land to be Rs. 2000/- per square meter instead of Rs. 1000/- as awarded by the Collector. 3 Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. In support of his claim, the appellant examined Shri Sushil Batta (PW-1), Shri Kamal Kishore (PW-2), and Shri B.S. Chauhan (PW-3). The claimants witnesses proved on record sale deeds Ext. PA/3 and Ext. PA/4. In terms of sale deed Ext. PA/3, whereby 189 square meters of land was sold on 15.10.2003 for Rs. 5,50,000/- (Rs. 2910/- per square meter) and in terms of sale deed Ext. PA/4, 159 square meters of land was sold on 18.7.2003 for a sum of Rs. 4,90,000/- (Rs. 3081/- per square meter). The court below did not consider the same for determining the market value of the acquired land for the reason that there was nothing on record to show and prove the similarity with regard to the potential, use and value of both the lands. The statement of Shri Sushil Kumar Batta (PW-1) to prove the similarity of use and potential, to which my attention has been drawn by Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellant is vague, unspecific and of not much use to the claimants. He has simply deposed that the land sold in terms of the example sale deeds is 4 situated within the vicinity of the acquired land. There is no other material on record to substantiate the plea of similarity of the use, location or potentiality of the acquired land with that of land sold in terms of the example sale deeds. Further, PW-2 has clarified that land covered in terms of Ext.PA/3 is in fact at a distance of one K.M. from Chambaghat towards the Solan Township. Thus, land sold in terms of sale deed Ex.PW3/A is situated at an advantageous location being closer to the main township of Solan, the District Headquarter. Advertisement regarding sale of plot whereby the land was sold by the Housing Board of the State of H.P., for a sum of Rs. 3600/- per square meter, to my mind, also would not prove the appellant’s case of claiming further enhancement of the amount already awarded by the court below. The land was sold by the Housing Board for setting-up a housing Board colony, which according to PW3 was fully developed having all paths, schools, community centre and other facilities. Except for the aforesaid evidence, there is no other material on record to prove the market value being 5 higher than what has been determined and awarded by the court below. For the aforesaid reasons, I see no reasons to interfere with the present appeal. The award has been passed after considering the entire material. The appreciation of the material is neither perverse nor erroneous. The compensation awarded by the court below is just fair and reasonable. For the aforesaid reasons, the present appeal stands dismissed. (Sanjay Karol) July 7, 2009 Judge. (vs)