IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. RFA No. 109 of 2006 Date of Decision : June 24, 2009. State of H.P. and others …Appellants. Versus: Ranbir Singh & Anr. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellants: Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A. G & Mr. J. S. Rana, Asstt. A.G. For the respondents. Mr. G. C. Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate SANJAY KAROL, JUDGE (Oral). The State has filed the present appeal assailing the impugned Award dated 3.10.2005, passed by the District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H. P. in Land Reference Petition No. 03-LAC/4 of 2004 titled as Ranbir Singh & Anr. vs. State of H.P. & others. For the public purpose, namely, construction of “Khajurna-Malonwala link road”, the claimants land comprising Khasra Nos. 103/2, measuring 14 biswas and Khasra No. 106/2, measuring 3 bighas 2 biswas, total land measuring 3 bighas 16 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 biswas, situate at Mauza Malonwala, Tehsil Nahan, Distt. Sirmaur, H.P. was acquired by the State. Notification dated 28.4.1997 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was published in the H. P. Rajpatra on 24.5.1997. The Award No.46/2000 dated 20.1.2001, was passed by the Collector awarding compensation by determining different rates for different categories of land as under:- Class of land Rate per bigha Majruha land = Rs.1,26,806/- Banger Kadeem = Rs.30,033/- Nakabil = Rs. 3,337/- Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed 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 petitioners are entitled for enhanced amount of compensation? …….OPP 2) Whether the reference petition is not maintainable being barred by time? ….OPR 3) Relief. Opportunity to lead evidence was afforded to the parties. Admittedly, the State has not led any oral evidence, except for tendering document of sale transaction Ext.R-1. 3 The Court below, by taking into account the sale transaction pertaining to the same village as recorded in the judgment passed by the Sr. Sub Judge, Nahan (Ext.PW-1/A) and decree (Ext.PW-1/B) determined the market value of the acquired land to be Rs.3,20,000/- per bigha. However, by taking into account the fact that the said transaction pertained to small piece of land, by making necessary deductions to the extent of 40%, the Court below determined the market value of the acquired land to be Rs.1,92,000/- per bigha. The compensation awarded by the Collector as such was enhanced and the claimants were also held entitled to all statutory benefits in accordance with law. The State has filed the present appeal on the ground that the Court below wrongly ignored the sale transaction Ext.R- 1 placed on record by them. The challenge is also on the ground that the compensation awarded is on the higher side. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. It is an admitted fact that the State did not lead any evidence except for tendering the document pertaining to a sale transaction Ext.R-1. Ext.R-1 is an attested copy and not a certified copy. In any event, the Court below has rightly held that the same could not be made basis for determining the market value as it pertains to village Shambhuwala , which is at a distant place. The acquisition pertains to village Malonwala. 4 Further, the similarity with regard to the use, potential and nature between the land sold in terms of Ext.R-1 and the acquired land has not been proved on record. Hence, the Court below rightly did not consider the same for determining the market value of the acquired land. Shri N. K. Bharwal (PW-1), Shri Ranbir Singh (PW-2) & Shri Dinesh Chand (PW-3) have proved the similarity between the acquired land and that of the land covered in terms of sale transactions evidenced in document Ext.PW-1/A & Ext.PW-1/B. Ext.PW-1/A is the judgment recording the compromise effected between private parties in Civil Suit No.60/1 of 1995 pending before the Senior Sub Judge, Nahan. The compromise was entered into between Shri Ranbir Singh (PW-2) and Shri Parvex Khan. On 2.9.1998, one biswa of land situate in the very same village, where the land for instant acquisition proceedings was also acquired, was sold for a sum of Rs.16,000/-. The instant acquisition proceedings commenced in April, 1997. The transaction took place within a period of one year from the date of the initiation of the acquisition proceedings. Admittedly, there are no other sale transactions pertaining to village Malonwala. Hence, the same was rightly considered for determining the market value of the acquired land. The Court below has carried out deduction to the extent of 40% while determining the market value of the 5 acquired land. In my considered view, there is nothing wrong with the same. The Division Bench of this Court in Land Acquisition Collector vs. Sukhdev Singh 1995(1) Shim.L. C. 214 has held as under: - “It is well settled that to determine the market value of the land under section 23(1) of the Act, sales of the land under acquisition, if any, or the sales of land in the neighbourhood possessed of the same or similar potentiality or other advantages furnish basis to assess just and fair market value for the acquired land on the premise of hypothetical willing vendor and willing vendee. What a willing vendor would offer and a willing vendee would accept as prudent men in the normal market conditions, near about the date of notification under section 4 of the Act, is the acid test of the market value of the acquired land.” The compensation awarded by the Court below is just, fair and reasonable. I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned award. The appeal is consequently dismissed. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. June 24, 2009. (rana)