IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA No.79 of 2002 with C.O.No. 124 of 2002. RFA No.80 of 2002 with C.O.No. 125 of 2002. RFA No.81 of 2002. RFA No.82 of 2002 with C.O.No. 126 of 2002. RFA No.83 of 2002. RFA No.84 of 2002. RFA No.85 of 2002 with C.O.No.127 of 2002. RFA No.86 of 2002 with C.O. No.128 of 2002. RFA No.87 of 2002. RFA No.88 of 2002 with C.O.No.129 of 2002. RFA No.89 of 2002. Judgement reserved on: 25.4.2008. Date of decision: May 2, 2008. [ For title, please see pages (i) & (ii) ] Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Additional Advocate Geneal for the appellants in all the above appeals. For the Respondents : Mr. K.D.Sood, Advocate for the respondents in all the appeals. Mr. K.S.Pathania, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 & 3 in RFA No. 86 of 2002. Kuldip Singh, Judge. This judgement shall dispose of RFA No.79 of 2002 with C.O. No. 124 of 2002, RFA No.80 of 2002 with C.O. No. 125 of 2002, RFA No.81 of 2002, RFA No.82 of 2002 with C.O. No. 126 of 2002, Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… RFA No.83 of 2002, RFA No.84 of 2002, RFA No.85 of 2002 with C.O.No.127 of 2002, RFA No.86 of 2002 with C.O. No.128 of 2002, RFA No.87 of 2002, RFA No.88 of 2002 with C.O.No.129 of 2002, RFA No.89 of 2002, which have arisen out of common award, dated 18.1.2001, passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, in Land Ref. Case Nos. 14, 13, 23, 18, 19, 24, 22, 21, 20, 17 and 16 of 2000, respectively. 2. The facts in brief are that Public Works Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh for acquiring 24-2 bighas land for public purpose for construction of Ali Khud Bridge road in village Behal Kandela, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur had issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act), which was published in the gazette on 3.8.1996. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, the Collector) has passed the award on 10.11.1997. The details of the lands of the respondents and the compensation awarded to them by the Collector as referred in the impugned award, are as follows:- Sr. No. No. & name of petition. Total area acquired. Compensation awarded. 1. 14 of 2000, Shri Durga v;s. LAC. 3-9 Bighas Rs.1,14,000/- 2. 13 of 2000, Sh. Ramesh etc. vs. LAC. 1-5 Bigha Rs. 42,000/- 3. 23 of 2000, Rattan Lal etc. vs. LAC. 0-5 Bigha Rs. 5,000/- 4. 18 of 2000, Sh. Ranjit Singh vs. LAC 1-7 Bigha Rs. 33,000/- 5. 19 of 2000, Shri Gopal Dass etc. vs. LAC. 0-12 Bigha Rs. 19,000/- …3… 6. 24 of 2000, Sh. Gorkhu Ram etc. vs. LAC. 0-17 Bigha Rs. 34,000/- 7. 22 of 2000, Sh. Hari Ram vs. LAC. 1-5 Bigha Rs. 45,000/- 8. 21 of 2000, Sh. Darshan Kumar etc. vs. LAC. 1-16 Bigha Rs. 68,000/- 9. 20 of 2000, Sh. Ramesh Kumar etc. vs. LAC. 0-5 Bigha Rs. 5,000/- 10. 17 of 2000, Sh. Bhagat Ram vs. LAC. 0-10 Bigha Rs. 10,000/- 11. 16 of 2000, Sh. Jagdish Kumar etc. vs. LAC. 0-6 Bigha Rs. 8,000/- 3. The respondents were aggrieved by the award of the Collector, therefore, they filed reference petitions for enhancement of compensation. The learned District Judge, vide order dated 28.1.2000, in Land Reference Case No. 14 of 2000, titled Durga vs. Land Acquisition Collector, consolidated the reference petitions. The Collector contested the reference petitions. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the petitioners of these petitions are entitled to enhanced amount of compensation, if so, to what extent and amount? OPP. 2. Relief. 4. The learned District Judge, vide award, dated 18.1.2001, has assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.10,000/- per biswa. No enhancement of compensation of houses of …4… Sunder Lal and Leela Devi was allowed. The learned District Judge has allowed solatium at the rate of 30% on the enhanced amount of compensation, additional compensation at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. 3.10.1996 to 10.11.1997 under Section 23(1-A) of the Act, 9% per annum interest for one year from the date of award dated 10.11.1997 and thereafter interest at the rate of 15% per annum till enhanced amounts of compensation are paid or deposited by the Collector. The above appeals have been filed against the common award dated 18.1.2001. 5. I have heard Mr. A.K.Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants, Mr. K.D.Sood, learned counsel for the respondents in all the appeals, Mr. K.S. Pathania, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 in RFA No. 86 of 2002 and gone through the record. On behalf of the appellants, it has been submitted that learned District Judge has erred in determining the market value of the acquired land at Rs.10,000/- per biswa or say Rs.2,00,000/- per bigha as against Rs.2500/- per biswa or say Rs.50,000/- per bigha assessed by the Collector. It has been submitted that enhancement of the market value by the learned District Judge is against the proved facts on record. The learned District Judge has not properly appreciated the material on record and has misconstrued and misinterpreted the evidence led by the parties. The learned counsel for the respondents have supported the impugned award and on behalf of the respondents who have filed cross-objections have submitted that such respondents are entitled to enhancement of compensation as claimed by them in the cross-objections. It has also been submitted on behalf of the …5… respondents that they are entitled to interest on the solatium part of compensation also. 6. In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, it is necessary to refer to the evidence led by the parties before the reference court. PW 1 Durga Ram has stated that his land measuring 3-11 bighas situated in village Behal Kandela was acquired for construction of road. He has submitted that villages Kothi and Nihal are adjacent to the acquired land, where land was sold at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per biswa in the year 1988. The sale at the rate of Rs.50/- per biswa has been manipulated in order to harm him and this sale was wrongly considered by the Collector. 7. PW 2 Jagdish Kumar has stated that acquired land in village Behal Kandela is adjacent to the city, industrial area, I.T.I. and National Highway. Before 1996 the villagers were not ready to sell their land even at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per biswa. The land in village Behal Kandela is highly valuable for commercial activities. PW 3 Sanjiv Kumar has stated that his land measuring 17 biswas was acquired for construction of road. He claimed Rs.10,00,000/- compensation for the land. PW 4 Ramesh Chand has stated that his land measuring 1-5 bighas was acquired for the construction of the road. He claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per biswa. PW 5 Ranjit Singh has stated that his land measuring 1-7 bighas was acquired for the construction of the road and he claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per biswa. 8. PW 6 Darshan Kumar has stated that his land measuring 1-16 bighas was acquired for the construction of the road …6… and he claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per biswa. PW 7 Amar Singh, special power of attorney of Bhagat Ram, has stated that their land measuring 11 biswas was acquired for construction of the road and he claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per biswa. PW 8 Hari Ram has stated that his land measuring 1-5 bighas was acquired for construction of the road and he claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per biswa. PW 9 Sohan Lal has stated that his land measuring 12 biswas was acquired for the construction of the road and he has claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per biswa for the acquired land. PW 10 Jagdish Chand has stated that his land measuring 6 biswas was acquired for the construction of the road and he has claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per biswa for the acquired land. PW 11 Mrs. Sandeep Grewal, Architect has stated that she has passed Bachelor of Architecture Course from Chandigarh. She is doing her private practice in the name of Designers Corporate at Ludhiana. The estimates Ex. PW 11/A and Ex. PW 11/B were prepared by her on the spot which bear her signatures. In cross examination, she has denied that she has prepared higher assessment report just to benefit herself and her client. She has stated that she charges 1% of the total estimated cost of the existing structure. 9. PW 12 Jagtamba Devi has stated that on 16.9.1993 she has purchased 5 biswas land vide sale deed copy Ex. P 3 from Ghulla Ram in village Nihal for Rs.45,000/-, which was paid to Ghulla Ram. The acquired land is about one kilometer from the aforesaid land. She had purchased the land at the prevalent market rate for construction of …7… house. The land which she had purchased is about half kilometer from the main road. PW 13 Smt. Pushpa Devi has stated that she sold land measuring 4 biswas to Karam Chand for a consideration of Rs.60,000/- in the year 1994 at village Nihal vide sale deed, copy Ex. P 1. She had received full sale consideration of Rs.60,000/- from the vendee. The land was sold by her at the prevalent market rate at that time. 10. PW 14 Parkash Chand has stated that he sold one biswa land for a consideration of Rs.15,000/- to Geeta Ram in village Kothi in the year 1988, vide sale deed, copy Ex. P-2. Mr. V. K. Thakur, Advocate has tendered in evidence documents Ex. P 1 to Ex. P 9 on 20.10.2000. On behalf of the Collector, only copy of sale deed Ex. R-1 was tendered in evidence and no other evidence was led. 11. The acquired land is situated in village Behal Kandela. PW 1 Durga Ram in his statement has stated that village Kothi and Nihal are adjacent to the acquired land. The sale deeds Ex. P 1 and Ex. P 3 are of village Nihal and sale deeds Ex. P 2 and Ex. P 5 are of village Kothi. The petitioners have not produced any sale deed of village Behal Kandela. The respondents have produced sale deed Ex. R-1 dated 28.5.1996 of village Behal Kandela. The sale deed Ex. R-1 has just been tendered in evidence, the vendor nor the vendee of this sale deed have been examined. There is no evidence of comparability of the land covered by sale deed Ex. R-1 and the acquired land. Therefore, the sale deed Ex. R-1 cannot be relied for determining the market value of the acquired land. There is no other sale deed of village Behal Kandela on record for determining the market value of the acquired land. The sale deed Ex. P- 5, dated 12.3.1998 has been …8… executed more than one and half years after the publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act, therefore, the sale deed Ex. P-5 cannot be relied for determining the market value of the acquired land. In addition to this there is no evidence regarding the comparability of the land covered by sale deed Ex. P 5 with the acquired land. The award Ex. P 4, dated 19.4.1999 is of another village Kangoo, Sundernagar and therefore it also can not be relied for determining the market value of the acquired land. 12. Now only sale deeds Ex. P 1 to Ex. P 3 are left on record for consideration. These sale deeds are of villages Nihal and Kothi, which are adjacent to the acquired land. The sale deeds Ex. P 1, Ex. P 2 and Ex. P 3 have been proved on record. PW 12 Smt. Jagtamba Devi vendee of the sale deed Ex. P -3 has proved this sale deed, Ex. P-1 sale deed has been proved by PW 13 Smt. Pushpa Devi vendor and sale deed Ex. P 2 has been proved by its vendor PW 14 Parkash Chand. In absence of other evidence on record, the sale deeds Ex. P 1, Ex. P 2 and Ex. P 3 can be relied for assessing the market value of the acquired land. 13. As per sale deeds Ex. P 1 and Ex. P 2, the rate of land comes at Rs.15,000/- per biswa and as per sale deed Ex. P 3, the rate of land comes at Rs.9,000/- per biswa. On the basis of average of sale deeds Ex. P 1 to Ex. P 3 the learned District Judge has assessed the rate at Rs.12,000/- per biswa. The sale deeds Ex. P 1, Ex. P 2 and Ex. P 3 are of small area transactions in comparison to acquired land which is large area, therefore, the learned District Judge has made further deduction of Rs.2000/- per biswa and assessed the market …9… value of the acquired land at Rs.10,000/- per biswa. The learned District Judge has thus rightly determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.10,000/- on the basis of material on record. The learned District Judge has rightly awarded the additional compensation under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act, solatium and interest on the enhanced amount of compensation. The cross-objectors have claimed enhancement of Rs.1,000/-. The amount claimed by way of cross- objections is meager. But even this increase has not been substantiated. In these circumstances, the respondents who have filed the cross-objections are not entitled to any further enhancement of compensation by way of cross-objections. Sunder Lal and Leela Devi, who were not given any enhancement of compensation for the houses, have not filed any cross-objections. The learned District Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and no fault can be found with the amount of compensation awarded by the learned District Judge to the respondents. No case for interference has been made out either by the appellants or by the respondents who have filed the cross- objections. It is made clear that respondents shall be entitled to interest on the solatium also awarded by learned District Judge. 14. No other point was urged. 15. As a result of the above discussion, all the appeals, being RFA Nos.79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88 and 89 of 2002 and Cross Objection No. 124 of 2002 filed in RFA No. 79 of 2002, Cross Objection No. 125 of 2002 filed in RFA No. 80 of 2002, Cross Objection No. 126 of 2002 filed in RFA No. 82 of 2002, Cross Objection No. 127 of 2002 filed in RFA No. 85 of 2002, Cross Objection No. 128 …10… of 2002 filed in RFA No. 86 of 2002, Cross Objection No. 129 of 2002 filed in RFA No. 88 of 2002, are dismissed with no orders as to costs. May 2, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge. …11… (i) 1. RFA No. 79 of 2002 with C.O. No. 124 of 2002. Land Acquisition Collector ….. Appellant. Vs. Durga ….. Respondent. 2. RFA No. 80 of 2002 with C.O. No. 125 of 2002. Land Acquisition Collector ….. Appellant. Vs. Ramesh & ors. ….. Respondents. 3. RFA No. 81 of 2002. Land Acquisition Collector ….. Appellant. Vs. Rattan LaL & ors. ….. Respondents. 4. RFA No. 82 of 2002 with C.O. No. 126 of 2002. Land Acquisition Collector ….. Appellant. Vs. Ranjit Singh ….. Respondent. 5. RFA No. 83 of 2002. Land Acquisition Collector ….. Appellant. Vs. Gopal Dass & ors. ….. Respondents. 6. RFA No. 84 of 2002. Land Acquisition Collector ….. Appellant. Vs. Gorkhu Ram & ors. ….. Respondents. …12… (ii) 7. RFA No. 85 of 2002 with C.O. No. 127 of 2002. Land Acquisition Collector ….. Appellant. Vs. Hari Ram ….. Respondent. 8. RFA No. 86 of 2002 with C.O. No. 128 of 2002. Land Acquisition Collector ….. Appellant. Vs. Darshan Kumar ors. ….. Respondents. 9. RFA No. 87 of 2002. Land Acquisition Collector ….. Appellant. Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. ….. Respondents. 10. RFA No. 88 of 2002 with C.O. No. 129 of 2002. Land Acquisition Collector ….. Appellant. Vs. Bhagat Ram ….. Respondent. 11. RFA No. 89 of 2002. Land Acquisition Collector ….. Appellant. Vs. Jagdish Kumar & ors. ….. Respondents.