---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. RFA No. 462 of 2004 with Cross Objections No. 158 of 2005. Decided on: November 07, 2009. 1. RFA No.462 of 2004. Khem Chand. …… Appellant. Versus State of H.P. and others. …….Respondents. 2. Cross Objections No.158 of 2005. Khem Chand. …… Appellant/ Non-Objector. Versus 1. State of H.P. and another. …….Respondents/ Non-Objectors. 3. M/s Gujrat Ambuja Cement Limited. …… Respondent No.3./ Cross-Objector. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant/ : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Non-Objector. For the respondents: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2/ Non-Objectors. Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate with Mr. D.R. Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.3/ Cross Objectors. Surinder Singh, J (oral). This judgment shall dispose of the present appeal, filed by the claimant as well the Cross-Objections, filed by - 2 - respondent No.3 M/s Gujrat Ambuja Cements Limited, as having arisen from the same award, passed by the learned District Judge, in LAC Petition No.4-S/4 of 2003, decided on Ist September, 2004 and corrected vide order dated 5.10.2004. The facts in brief, which are necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal, can be stated thus. The Industry Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh (respondent No.1) issued a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, in short ‘the Act’, on 3rd September, 1997, expressing its intention inter-alia, acquiring the land comprised in khasra Nos.266, 269, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 307/174/1 and 308/174/1 (hereinafter referred to be ‘the land in dispute’), situated in Mauja Ratoh, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. The requisite Notifications under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act, were also issued. Survey was conducted and notices were issued to the interested persons. Many interest-holders negotiated with respondent No.3 aforesaid and had accepted the compensation @ Rs.90,000/- per Bigha for cultivated land and Rs.30,000/- for uncultivated land. Said rates were inclusive of all the charges including the statutory interest, however, separate compensation was paid for the standing trees and houses, as per negotiations, but the appellant was not amongst the said land owners/ Interest holders, who agreed for the payment of the compensation on - 3 - the aforesaid rates, as such, claimed the value of the land in dispute and claimed the compensation @ Rs.6 lacs per Bigha. The Land Acquisition Collector vide award No.3 of 2000, assessed the compensation @ Rs.31,000/- per Bigha for cultivated land and for non-cultivated land Rs.6,000/- per Bigha with the statutory interest. Since the appellant was not satisfied with the award passed by the Collector, hence, he filed a reference petition, claiming the higher compensation, which was sent to the learned District Judge, for determination. The contention raised before the learned District Judge by the appellant was that the land in dispute is situated at village Ratoh, which has a Primary Health Centre, Primary School and a Veterinary Centre and it has the potentiality for commercial activities and further contended that no compensation was paid for trees and house and the value of the alleged house is to be not less than Rs.10 lacs. The respondents herein, denied the inadequacy of compensation paid to the appellant. They specifically denied about the existence of the Primary Health Centre, Primary School as well as Veterinary Centre in that village and further denied that the land acquired had any commercial potential. It was further contended that the aforesaid land is situated away from the road-head and its value was rightly assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector. - 4 - The learned District Judge had framed the following issue, on the pleadings of the parties: 1. Whether the petitioner was not paid adequate compensation, for his land acquired. If so, what is adequate amount of compensation? ….OPP. 2. Relief. The parties led their evidence and after appreciating the evidence of the parties, learned District Judge taking into consideration the negotiations made by other claimants with the respondent No.3-Company and also taking into consideration the sale deeds, produced in evidence, enhanced the compensation in respect of the cultivated land by Rs.23,217/- and uncultivated land @ Rs.12,675/- per Bigha plus compulsory acquisition charges @ 30% and interest @ 12% p.a. from 11.9.97 the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act to 7.9.2000 the date of award of the Collector and also interest on the excess market value plus compulsory acquisition charges @ 15% p.a. for first year and 9% p.a. for remaining period from the date of award of the Collector i.e. 7.9.2000 to the date of deposit of excess compensation amount with the learned District Judge. However, no compensation was granted for trees and structure, as the appellant did not lead any evidence to this effect. The appellant did not feel satisfied with the enhancement made by the learned District Judge, as such - 5 - filed the present appeal, on the grounds that the learned District Judge did not appreciate the evidence on record in the right perspective and wrongly declined the compensation for trees and house of the appellant and further that the sale instances Exts.PB and PH were wrongly ignored and disbelieved. Therefore, the compensation was required to be further enhanced, on the higher side. Notice of this appeal was sent to the respondents. Respondent No.3- M/s Gujrat Ambuja Cement Limited filed the Cross-Objections, which were registered as C.O. No.158 of 2005, whereby it is contended that the learned District Judge had rightly ignored the sale instances being not genuine, but the sale instances placed on the record by the respondent/ Objectors were not properly appreciated and the learned District Judge had wrongly applied the amount payable under the consented award for determining the compensation of the acquired land. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully re-examined the evidence on record. The main stay of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant is the sale instances Exts.PB and PH, for seeking the enhancement. Ext.PB is a copy of the sale deed whereby one Lekh Ram son of Shibia had sold the land comprised in Khata/ Khatauni No.20/21 bearing Khasra No.17, measuring 1 Bigha 11 Biswas (Bakhal Abbal), as recorded in the Jamabandi for the year 1992-93 to Shri Jeet Ram, for a - 6 - sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on 12.5.1997. As per the attested copy of the sale deed, the said land is situated in village Bagga (190). The appellant Khem Chand (PW1) stated that the said land is situated at a distance of 2 Km. away from the acquired land. However, there is no evidence on record that the land in dispute is contiguous to village Bagga and has the same potential as the land situated in village Ratoh, therefore, the learned Reference Court rightly ignored this sale instance. In so far as the sale deed Ex.PH is concerned, it was executed on I2.5.1998, i.e. after the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act by Bajiru Ram (PW3) to his son Madan Lal. The land involved in the said sale deed is situated within the area where the land in question is notified for acquisition. This 04 Biswas of land has been sold by said Bajiru Ram to his only son Madan Lal, admittedly, the only son of the vendor and that too before determining the compensation payable for the notified land. Thus, the presumption can validly be drawn that it was a sham transaction and made only to inflate the market value of the land and this transaction was held to be rightly not genuine by the learned District Judge. As stated above, the land in dispute is situated in village Ratoh. The claimant testified on oath that the impugned land is situated in the foothill of the hillock. It is not cultivable and is barren. Darlaghat, which is developed as industrial hub, is at a distance of 3 Km from the acquired land. He further testified - 7 - that the Primary Health Centre is in village Kashlog at a distance of about 1½ Km. and High School is situated at Chandi at a distance of about 2 Km., that too by shortcut. He also stated that the Government Dispensary and Veterinary Dispensary both are situated at village Kashlog, where the Patwarkhana is situated. He also stated that the Offices of the Junior Engineer (Irrigation & Public Health) and Forest Ranger are also situated at Kashlog, whereas, the acquired land is in village Ratoh. Therefore, the very basis of the contention, as raised in appeal that all these offices are at the place where the land in dispute is situated have been proved to be incorrect. The impugned award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector shows that the some of the interest-holders had agreed to accept the compensation @ Rs.90,000/- per Bigha for the cultivated land and Rs.30,000/- for uncultivated land, which were inclusive of statutory interest and acquisition charges. Many land holders have accepted the negotiated price of the land, as per the consented award and the date of the Notification under Section 4 in the instant case is also the same. Therefore, learned District Judge rightly took into consideration the aforesaid consented award for determining the value of the land in dispute at the relevant time @ Rs.54,217/- per Bigha for cultivated land and Rs.18,675/- for uncultivated land and I have no reason to differ with it. Thus, the appellant was rightly held for the enhanced compensation - 8 - in respect of the cultivated land @ Rs.23,217/- per Bigha and Rs.12,675/- per Bigha for the uncultivated land plus compulsory acquisition charges and statutory interests as aforesaid. So far as the claims of the respondent No.3-Company in cross-objections are concerned, they placed before the learned District Judge the sale transactions of the land situated in villages Gyana and Ratoh. Since the land in dispute is also in village Ratoh and the sale exemplar Ext.RB/7 dated 10.4.1997 with respect to the 10 Biswas of land is for Rs.7,500/- is relevant, but the nature of the land is not specified therein. RW4 Krishan Chand stated in his affidavit Ex.RD that he is a co-owner with the appellant in Khasra No.271 to 273, which is the part of the subject matter of land in dispute, but he had accepted the negotiated price on the consented award referred to above and he declared in his affidavit that he had received the compensation according to the prevailing rate of land, which is no other rate than the negotiated value/price. The other sale instances placed on record by the respondents are of no avail to them as nothing was brought on record to show the distance between the place of land in dispute and the land involved in the sale exemplar. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that the market value of the land has been rightly assessed by the learned District Judge, with respect of the cultivated and - 9 - uncultivated land in dispute and the appellant has failed to convince that the learned District Judge failed to assess the value of the land at the rate as claimed by him on the evidence produced before him, rather, I find that he has applied his judicial acumen in the facts and circumstances of the case for assessing the market value of the land at the relevant time. Further the appellant did not produce any evidence before the Reference Court with respect to the existence of the trees over the land in dispute and the house, as claimed by him. Therefore, I do not find any force in the appeal and also the cross-objections filed by respondent No.3. Accordingly, the appeal as also the cross-objections are dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. (Surinder Singh ) Judge November 07, 2009. (Pds)