IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. RFA No. 138 of 2006 with RFA Nos.139, 140 & 141 of 2006 Date of Decision : November 27, 2008 RFA No. 138 of 2006 State H.P.& Others …Appellants. Versus: Shyama Nand …Respondent. RFA No. 139 of 2006 State H.P.& Others …Appellants. Versus: Ganga Ram …Respondent. RFA No. 140 of 2006 State H.P.& Others …Appellants. Versus: Shyama Nand & Others …Respondents. RFA No. 141 of 2006 State of H.P.& Others …Appellants. Versus: Gajjan Singh & Others …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. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A. G. For the respondents. Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate For Central Bank of : Mr. Ashok Sood, Advocate. India SANJAY KAROL, JUDGE (Oral). The present appeals arise out of a common Award dated 9.11.2005 passed by the District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P., in Land Ref. Petition No. 38 of 2002 titled as Shyama Nand vs. State of H.P. & Others, Land Ref. Petition No. 39 of 2002 titled as 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Ganga Ram vs. State of H.P. & Others, Land Ref.Petition No. 40 of 2002 titled as Shyama Nand & Others vs. State of H.P. & Others and Land Ref.Petition No. 41 of 2002 titled as Hoshiar Singh (deceased) through his LRs Gajjan Singh & others vs. State of H.P. & Others. The land reference petitions are consolidated by the District Judge and decided as such. The claimants land situate in village Sunhani, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H. P. was acquired for the public purpose, namely, ‘construction of Kotlu-Sunhani road’. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act), issued on 15.3.1988 (published in H. P. Rajpatra on 30.4.1988). Award No. B-2/87, dated 15.11.1988 was passed by the Collector, Land Acquisition, determining different market rates for different classifications/ categories of land as under:- Sr.No. Category of land Value per bigha 1. Anderli Awal Rs.5501.00 2. Anderli Doem Rs.4703.00 3. Baharli Awal Rs.2218.00 4. Baharli Doem Rs.1420.00 5. Banjar & Kharyater Rs. 533.00 Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Collector, the claimants filed Land Reference Petition under 3 Section 18 of the Act, claiming enhancement of the compensation at the rate of Rs. One lac per biswa (Rs.20 lacs per bigha). The detail of the acquired land of the claimants is given as under:- Sr.No. Land Ref.Petn. No. Name of parties Khasra No. Area 1. 38/2002 Shyama Nand vs. LAC etc. 1491/1 0.12 bigha 2. 39/2002 Ganga Ram vs. LAC etc. 1651/1499/1 2.5 bigha 3. 40/2002 Shyama Nand etc. vs. LAC etc. 1498/1 0.12 bigha 4. 41/2002 Hoshiar Singh deceased through LRs vs. LAC etc. 1133/1 1142/1 0.11 bigha Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Court below famed the following issues :- 1) Whether the Collector, Land Acquisition had inadequately assessed the market value of the land under acquisition? …….OPP 2) Whether the State had taken possession of the land under acquisition in 1972 and the petitioner is entitled to interest ad other benefits on the amount of compensation w.e.f. 1972? …….OPP Opportunity to adduce evidence was afforded by the Court to the parties. Appreciating the material on record (oral and documentary), the District Judge enhanced the market value of the acquired land to Rs.2200/- per biswa (2200 x 20 biswas = Rs.44,000/- per bigha (1 bigha = 20 biswas). 4 The State has filed the present appeal challenging the impugned Award on the ground that the compensation awarded is much on the higher side. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. In order to prove its case, the claimants examined S/Shri Shyama Nand (PW-1), Jagdish Chand (PW-2) & Om Parkash (PW-3) and proved on record the copies of the Sale Deeds Ext. PW-2/A, Ext.P-3 & Ext.P-4. In rebuttal, the respondent-State examined Shri Ram Lal Kaushal (RW-1) and proved on record Sale Deed Ext.R-1. There is no dispute with regard to the entitlement of the claimants and the extent of the land acquired. The individual share holding of each claimant, in the acquired land, undisputedly is small. In terms of Sale Deed Ext.P-3, dated 26.12.1986, 3 biswas of land was sold for Rs.3,000/- in village Sunhani. Similarly, in terms of Sale Deed Ext.P-4, dated 8.10.1984, 2 biswas of land was sold for a sum of Rs.6,000/-. Thus, in terms of the exemplar Sale Deed, the market value of the land was Rs.1000/- per biswa. In terms of Sale Deed Ext.PW-2/A, dated 11.5.1987, PW-2 sold 2 biswas of land for Rs.9500/- in village Sargal. PW-2 has deposed that village Sunhani and Sargal are adjoining to each other and the land of the two villages is same and similar. This fact also stands corroborated by PW-1 & PW-3. 5 The acquired land is situated in village Sunhani. The exemplar Sale Deeds Ext.P-3 pertains to the year 1986 and Ext.PW-2/A pertains to the year 1987. This only shows that there is a trend in the increase of the land prices in and around the area of the acquired land and where the road was constructed. RW-1 in fact has admitted that much prior to the issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act (15.3.1988), the possession of the land has been taken. The work for the construction of the road was in progress at that time. The area thus being accessible by road, the prices were bound to increase. Therefore, in my view, the Court below rightly took the average of all the three Sale Deeds i.e. Ext.PW-2/A, Ext.P-2 & Ext.P-3 to arrive at average of Rs.2917/- (though wrongly typed as 2200/-). Having arrived at the said figure, taking in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another {AIR 1988 SC 1652}, the Court applied the deduction of 25% on the said amount and arrived at a figure of Rs.2200/- per biswa. In my view, there is nothing wrong with the same. The Court has not erred in either appreciating the evidence or applying the provisions of law and the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court. While arriving at its decision, the Court took into account the Sale Deed Ext.R-1 produced on record by the respondent-State and rightly discarded the same as the sale was 6 interse between the father and the sons and there was nothing on record to show the exact sale consideration paid or received by the vendor or the vendee. In Shaji Kuriakose & Anr. vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,& Ors. (2001(7) SCC 650), the Apex Court laid down the factors for assessing value of the acquired land as under:- “True that Courts adopt comparable sales method of valuation of land while fixing the market value of the acquired land. While fixing the market value of the acquired land, comparable sales method of valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of land such as capitalization of net income method or expert opinion method. Comparable sales method of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land at which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it had been sold in the open market at the time of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, comparable sales method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive. There are certain factors which are required to be fulfilled and on fulfillment of those factors the compensation can be awarded, according to the value of the land reflected in the sales. The factors laid down inter alia are: (1) the sale must be a genuine transaction, (2) that the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act, (3) that the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land, (4) that the land covered by the sales must be similar to the acquired land, and (5) that the 7 size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired. If all these factors are satisfied, then there is no reason why the sale value of the land covered by the sales be not given for the acquired land. However, if there is a dissimilarity in regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land between land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to the court to proportionately reduce the compensation for acquired land than what is reflected in the sales depending upon the disadvantages attached with the acquired land.” In my view, the market value determined by the Court below is just, fair and reasonable. The claimants were deprived of their constitutional rights as the possession of the land was actually taken without resorting to the provisions of law. However, no compensation can be awarded for the period prior to the initiation of the acquisition proceedings. The claimants had been rightly held entitled to interest, solatium and other statutory benefits in accordance with the provisions of law from the date of the publication of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeals are dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. November 27, 2008. (rana)