IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RFA No.: 40 alongwith RFAs No. 42 of 2002 and 43 of 2002. Reserved on: 22.07.2008. Decided on: 18.09.2008. RFA No.40 of 2002: Land Acquisition Collector. … … Appellant. Versus Smt. Sarmishta Sharma. … … Respondent. RFA No.42 of 2002: Land Acquisition Collector. … … Appellant. Versus D.I.G. Pala Ram. … … Respondent. RFA No.43 of 2002: Land Acquisition Collector. … … Appellant. Versus Shri Chandervarkar. … … Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellants (in all the Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional appeals): Advocate General. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - For the Respondents (in all Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, the appeals): Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: These appeals have been filed against the common award passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Land Reference Cases No.3 of 1996, 4 of 1996 and 5 of 1996, dated 8.1.2001. Since these appeals have arisen out of the common award, they were heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of these appeals are that the Government of Himachal Pradesh had issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of land which was published in the H.P. State Gazette on 25.7.1992. The Notifications under Sections 6 and 7 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued on 9.2.1993. The Land Acquisition Collector after taking into consideration the average of sales/purchase of land within one year having been made in the area assessed the value of the land per hectare as Rs.10,52,912/- and of the acquired land Rs.63,662/-. In Land Reference No.3 of 1996, the land measuring 248.95 sq. meters was acquired. In land reference No.4 of 1996 land measuring 175.26 sq. meters was acquired for public purpose, i.e. construction of a road and in land Reference No.5 of 1996 land measuring 133.62 sq. meters was acquired in the year 1992. The Land Acquisition collector made an award on 25.2.1995. The claimants being dissatisfied with the award made by the Land Acquisition Collector preferred petitions under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the Land Acquisition Collector for making reference to the - 3 - learned District Judge. The Land Acquisition Collector made references to the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala and the same were registered as noticed above. The learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala passed the impugned award on 8.1.2001 whereby he assessed the market value of the land as Rs.4940/- per Marla and ultimately after deducting the other expenses, the same was assessed for the market value at the rate of Rs.4000/- per marla or Rs.208/- per square meter at the relevant time and the claimants were held entitled to statutory claims under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellants have assailed the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala on 8.1.2001. The learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the learned Additional district Judge while enhancing the compensation has not taken into consideration the well known principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for determining the market value of the acquired land. He then contended that the learned Additional District Judge could not take into consideration Ex.PW-4/A and Ex.PW- 5/A. He further contended that the learned Additional District Judge has wrongly dis-carded the sale deeds Ext.RW-1/A and Ex.RW-1/B. Mr. Ashwani Sharma has supported the award made by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, dated 8.1.2001. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued by the State Government of 3rd January, 1992. The land in question is situated near to the road, hospital, Courts and administrative offices in the town of Dharamshala. It is well connected from all corners. - 4 - The quality of land is Kuhli Abal. The land can yield three crops per year. The claimants have rightly relied upon two sale deeds Ex.PW-4/A and Ex.PW-5/A. The claimants have examined the attesting witnesses and scribe of the sale deeds Ex.PW-4/A and Ex.PW-5/A. The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 3.6.1992. The sale deed Ex.PW-4/A was executed on 26.12.1991. Vide this sale deed, land measuring 390 square meters was sold for rupees one lakh. The Land Acquisition Collector for assessing the one year price of the land per hectare has relied upon this sale deed Ex.PW- 4/A. The market value on the basis of Ex.PW-4/A per marla comes to Rs.4940/-. The learned Additional District Judge has rightly relied upon Ex.PW-4/A. The sale deed Ex.PW-4/A is of the similar land in the vicinity of the acquired land. As per this sale deed, the value of the land per square meter comes to Rs.260/- and Rs.4940/- per marla as noticed above. So far as Ex.RW-1/B is concerned, the same has been rightly discarded by the learned Additional District Judge. Vide sale deed Ex.RW-1/B the Society has sold the land to its members. Ex.PW-1/A could not also be taken into consideration since the price of land mentioned in this sale deed was lower than one which has been offered to the claimants by the Land Acquisition Collector. The land is situated near the hospital and is in the vicinity of the road. The administrative offices are also in close proximity to the acquired land. The classification of the land is irrigated “Kuhli Abal” yielding three crops a year. The learned Additional District Judge on the basis of ocular and documentary evidence has rightly awarded the compensation by assessing the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per marla. There is neither - 5 - any jurisdictional error not any procedural irregularity in the award dated 8.1.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala. Consequently, there is no merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. September 18, 2008. (Rajiv Sharma) (sck). Judge.