IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. RFA No.247 of 2005 Date of Decision : April 8, 2009 Prabhu Ram & Ors. …Appellants Versus: L.A.C …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants : Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A.G. Sanjay Karol, J(Oral). In the present appeal, the claimants have assailed the award dated 22.6.2005 passed by the District Judge, Bilaspur in Land Ref. Pet. No. 51 of 2001 titled as Prabhu Ram & Ors. v. LA.C. dismissing the petitioners’ Land Reference Petition filed under Section 18 of the Act. For the public purpose, namely, ‘construction of Auhar-Kohina Road’, the claimants land measuring 1-0 bigha, comprising Khewat No.3/5 min, Khasra No. 34/26/1, situate in village Patta, Tehsil Ghumrawin, Distt. Bilaspur was acquired by the State Government. Notification dated 29.12.1988 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued by the State Government, which was published in the H.P. Gazette. The Collector passed his award dated 8.1.1992 under Section 11 of the Act awarding a sum of Rs.6,324/-, Rs.2,939/- to Rs.6,324/- for different classifications of the land. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed Land Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Act claiming higher compensation. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Court below framed the following issue:- 1. Whether Collector, Land Acquisition had inadequately assessed the market value of the land under acquisition? In order to prove its case, the claimants tendered in evidence the following documents:- “1. Ext.PA copy of award, dated 22.8.2000 of learned District Judge, Bilaspur wherein the ld. District Judge has assessed the market value of the acquired land in village Ghial at the rate of rupees 6000/-per biswa. 2. Ext.PB is copy of memo of cost of Ext.PA award of the ld. District Judge. 3. Ext.PC is copy of award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector dated 8.1.1992. 4. Ext.P1 is copy of award of ld. District Judge, Bilaspur dated 20.12.2002 in land reference No.27 of 2000. As per this award, the land situated in the revenue estate chhat was acquired for the construction of Auhar-Kohina road and he has assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.70,000/- per bigha. 5. Ext.P-2 is certificate issued by the Patwari. 6. Ext.P-3 is Akash Shajra. 3 7. Ext.P-4 is copy of jamabandi for the year 2002-03 wherein Shri Prabhu Ram, petitioner has been recorded owner in possession of the land detailed in the jamabandi. Importantly, claimants did not step into witness box nor any oral evidence was led by them. There was nothing on record to prove as to how the market value determined by the Collector was on the lower side. Land covered by the exemplar Sale Deeds is same and similar in terms of potential, use and classification, to the acquired land has also not been proved. Respondents-State however, examined two witnesses, namely, Shri Bishan Dass (RW-1) and Shri Pyar Singh (RW-2). RW-2 has categorically deposed that the acquired land is at a distance of about 9 kms. from the National Highway and adequate compensation already stands paid to the claimants. RW-1 has proved on record Sale Deed (Ext.R-1). The said exemplar Sale Deed pertains to Mauza Marohian. 5 biswas of land was sold for Rs.15,000/- on 9.5.1988. The acquisition proceedings commenced in the year 1988 itself but, however, there is nothing on record to prove the similarity between the acquired land as also the land covered by the exemplar Sale Deeds with regard to potential, nature & utility. The Court below considered the same but, however, did not enhance the compensation awarded by the Collector as it found that the petitioner had already been paid adequate compensation. 4 It is a settled law that the land reference petition is to be treated as suit and the onus to prove that the market value is higher than what has been awarded by the Collector is on the claimants. In the present case, the claimants have not brought on record any such material. Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that inspite of having come to the conclusion that Sale Deed (Ext.R-1) could be considered for determining the market value, yet the Court below erred in not awarding the compensation in terms thereof. In fact no reasons have been assigned for not doing so. It is true that the Court below has not assigned any reason for the same but, however, Sale Deed (Ext.R-1) proved on record by the respondents cannot be considered for enhancing the compensation as there is nothing on record to prove the similarity between the two land. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. April 8, 2009. (Sanjay Karol) (rana) Judge.