IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. RFA No.468 of 2004 with RFA Nos. 469 to 480 of 2004. Date of Decision : May 29, 2009. RFA No.468 of 2004 State of H.P. and another …Appellants. Versus: Ishwar Dutt …Respondent. RFA No.469 of 2004 State of H.P. and others …Appellants. Versus: Luxmi Dutt Sharma & Ors. …Respondents. RFA No.470 of 2004 State of H.P. and another …Appellants. Versus: Roop Dutt (since deceased) through his LRs Inder Dutt & Ors. …Respondents. RFA No.471 of 2004 State of H.P. and another …Appellants. Versus: Usha Kiran …Respondent. RFA No.472 of 2004 State of H.P. and another …Appellants. Versus: Krishan Dutt …Respondent. RFA No.473 of 2004 State of H.P. and another …Appellants. Versus: Jai Dutt …Respondent. RFA No.474 of 2004 State of H.P. and another …Appellants. Versus: Braham Dutt …Respondent. 2 RFA No.475 of 2004 State of H.P. and another …Appellants. Versus: Shakuntla Devi …Respondent. RFA No.476 of 2004 State of H.P. and another …Appellants. Versus: Khem Chand …Respondent. RFA No.477 of 2004 State of H.P. and another …Appellants. Versus: Deen Dayal …Respondent. RFA No.478 of 2004 State of H.P. and another …Appellants. Versus: Uma Dutt …Respondent. RFA No.479 of 2004 State of H.P. and another …Appellants. Versus: Vinod Kumar …Respondent. RFA No.480 of 2004 State of H.P. and another …Appellants. Versus: Pushpa …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellants : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr.Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J. S. Rana, Asstt. A. G. For the respondents : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate SANJAY KAROL, JUDGE (Oral). All these appeals arise out of a common impugned Award dated 2.9.2004 passed by the Addl. District Judge, (Presiding Officer, Fast 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 3 Track Court), Solan, Distt. Solan, H. P. in Case No. 16 FT/4 of 2004/2001 titled as Ishwar Dutt vs. Land Acquisition Collector & another, Case No. 10 FT/4 of 2004/2001 titled as Roop Dutt vs. Land Acquisition Collector & another, Case No. 11 FT/4 of 2004/2001 titled as Usha Kiran vs. Land Acquisition Collector & another, Case No. 12 FT/4 of 2004/2001 titled as Krishan Dutt vs. Land Acquisition Collector & another, Case No. 13 FT/4 of 2004/2001 titled as Jai Dutt vs. Land Acquisition Collector & another, Case No. 14 FT/4 of 2004/2001 titled as Braham Dutt vs. Land Acquisition Collector & another, Case No. 15 FT/4 of 2004/2001 titled as Shakuntla Devi vs. Land Acquisition Collector & another, Case No. 17 FT/4 of 2004/2001 titled as Khem Chand vs. Land Acquisition Collector & another, Case No. 18 FT/4 of 2004/2001 titled as Deen Dayal vs. Land Acquisition Collector & another, Case No. 19 FT/4 of 2004/2001 titled as Uma Dutt vs. Land Acquisition Collector & another, Case No. 20 FT/4 of 2004/2001 titled as Vinod Kumar vs. Land Acquisition Collector & another, Case No. 21 FT/4 of 2004/2001 titled as Pushpa Devi vs. Land Acquisition Collector & another, and, as such, are being heard and disposed of by a common judgment. For the public purpose, namely, construction of Kumarhatti – Oachghat road, the appellant State issued Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) intending to acquire 4 Bighas of land situate in Village Anji Brhamna, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. Different parcels of land of the claimants herein, amongst others, was acquired in terms of the provisions of the Act, and finally after 4 holding the inquiry the Land Acquisition Collector determined the market price of the acquired land as under:- Sr. No. Classification of Land Rate or amount per bigha 1. Kohal Rs.14,656.00 2. Kohal abal Rs.12,300.00 3. Banger abal Rs. 7,228.00 4. Banjer Doem Rs. 4,842.00 5. Ghasni Rs. 500.00 6. Banjer Kadeem & Gair mumkin Rs. 500.00 The Collector passed Award No.2 of 1997 on 9.4.1997. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 28.12.1994, which was published in the H.P. Rajpatra on 21.1.1995. Aggrieved by the awards of the Collector, the land owners including the claimants filed Land Reference Petitions under Section 18 of the Act. In order to prove their case, the land owners examined witnesses in their respective claim petitions and proved on record and exhibited documents, including sale deeds and certain awards passed by the District Judge in relation to land situated in the adjoining villages also acquired for the very same public purpose. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Court below framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the Land Acquisition Collector did not properly assess the market value of the acquired land as alleged? ………OPP 5 2. If issue No.1 is proved, what was the market value of the acquired land at the time of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? ………OPP 3. Whether the possession of the acquired land was taken in the year 1961 from the petitioner. If so its effect? ….OPP 4. Whether the respondents have caused damage to the adjoining land of the petitioner. If so its effect? …..OPP 5. Relief” Opportunity to lead evidence was afforded to the parties. The claimants examined S/Shri Brahm Dutt (PW-1) and Mohinder Singh (PW-2) and the respondent-State examined Shri H. R. Khatana (RW-1). In the impugned award the Court below has relied upon the copies of the awards passed by the Addl. District Judge in Land Reference Petition No.39-S/4 of 2001 titled as Dhani Ram v. Land Acquisition Collector & Other and other connected matters (Ext.PD) and also Land Reference Petition No.14-S/4 of 2001 titled as Shankroo v. Land Acquisition Collector & Other and other connected matters (Ext.PE). In terms of the said awards, the District Judge enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants for the acquired land by determining the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.1,50,000/- per bigha irrespective of the category and classification of the land. For determining the market value of the land with respect to the instant land acquisition proceedings, the Court below made the aforesaid awards to be the basis for the following reasons:- i) they pertain to the very same public purpose for which the instant land was acquired; 6 ii) there was evidence enough on record to prove the similarity with respect to potential, use etc. between the acquired land and the land acquired under the said exemplar awards. Aggrieved by the awards Ext.PD & Ext.PE, the State filed appeals before this Court, as is evident from the grounds of the instant appeals, which are reproduced as under:- “That the impugned common award dated 2.9.2004 has been passed by Ld. Additional District Judge solely on the basis of its earlier award dated 26.5.2003 annum (sic) PD & PE against which the appellants had also preferred 14 R.F.A.’s before this Hon’ble Court on 9.6.2004 and the said R.F.A. No. are 162/04, 163/04, 164/04, 199/04 and CMP No. R.F.A.’s 69/04, 68/04, 66/04, 67/04, 71/04, 70/04, 75/04, 65/04, 72/04, 63/04. The said R.F.A.’s stood also admitted by this Hon’ble Court in which point of grant of abnormal enhancement in value of land stood challenged by the appellants. Hence, the present R.F.A. also deserves to be lagged and decided alongwith said 14 R.F.A.’s as per grounds so racked up in the same also.” This Court vide judgment dated 20.8.2007 passed in RFA No. 162/2004 titled as LAC & Ors. v. Prem Parkash and other connected matters which were heard alongwith RFA No. 156/2003 titled as Dinesh Chhetry vs. State of H.P. & Ors. has decided the aforesaid appeals by reducing the rate awarded by the District Judge in the land reference petition from Rs.1,50,000/- per bigha to Rs.1,33,330/- per bigha. It is a settled position of law that judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisition of land of neighboring villages can be considered and made basis for determining the market value. {Union of 7 India v. Harinder Pal & Others (2005) 12 SCC 564 and Executive Engineer & Anr. vs. Dilla Ram Latest HLJ 2008 (H.P.) 1007}. The instant acquired land, as has been noticed by the Court below has potential for commercial use. The reason for considering the awards and making the same to be the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land are borne out from the record. In RFA No. 162/2004 this Court has held as under:- “The market value means the price that a willing purchaser would pay to the willing seller for a property having due regards to its existing condition, with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when laid out in the most advantageous manner excluding any advantage due to the carrying out of the public purpose for which property is compulsorily acquired. I have perused the statements of the witnesses in all the appeals. From the statement of the witnesses, it is evident that the land in question has potential value for commercial growth. In the radius of 2-5 kms. there is a school, a commercial complex, post office, railway station and other communication facilities. The acquired land is also at a distance of about 5 Kms. from the township of Kumarhatti, which is on National Highway No.22 and is also at the same distance from Barog, which is a famous tourist destination on the same National Highway. Therefore, it cannot be disputed that the acquired land has potential of growth and is capable of being put to commercial use. The lands are in continuity and have been acquired for the same public purpose. The perusal of the awards would show that the Collector has not only awarded different rates for different categories of land but also different rates for different villages. It has come on record that the lands acquired in all the villages in question 8 are contiguous to each other and have all the advantages as enumerated hereinabove. The learned Advocate General submitted that keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by this Court in LAC, Solan and another vs. Bhoop Ram, reported in 1997 (2) Sim.L.C. 229, the highest amount of compensation awarded by the Collector should be uniformly applied to all the landowners whose land stand acquired in terms of the awards in question and are subject matter of the present appeals regardless of classification of the land as the purpose of acquisition is same and similar. Therefore, according to him all the claimants in the present appeal whose land has been acquired for the construction of Kumarhatti – Oachghat road should be awarded Rs.1,33,333.20 or say Rs.1,33,330.00 per bigha. His submission is based on the fact that there is enough evidence on record to show that the acquired land in different villages are having the same advantage and potentiality of increase in value due to its location in and around the areas where the land is put to commercial use. In Bhoop Ram (supra), this Court has held as under:- “The Land Acquisition Collector and the District Judge have determined the market value at a lesser rate for the acquired land, which was classified as Bangar Doem, Bangar Kadim, Ghasni, Charand and Gair Mumkin but in our view the classification of acquired land for the agricultural purpose is not relevant looking to the common purpose of acquisition for the construction of road and uniform rate of Rs.40 per sq. metre or Rs.30,000/- per Bigha should be awarded irrespective of the classification of the acquired land.” The aforesaid judgment has been consistently followed by the Court and in RFA No.2 of 1995, titled Phul Singh vs. LAC, this Court has held that if the land has potential for setting up 9 of industry, the whole of it, irrespective of the kind and class of the land can legitimately presumed to be same market value. In my view, the submission of the learned Advocate General is extremely fair and totally in consonance with the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court. Perusal of the some of the award shows that the Court below has already held that even if one category of the land is better than the other category for the agricultural purposes, however, in view of the probable further use of the land for the public purpose, the land of different categories would be deemed to be having similar potentiality and as such similar rate is required to be awarded uniformly irrespective of the category of land. In these cases, I am in agreement with the view taken by the Court below and do not find any infirmity in the decision so arrived. The amount offered by the Collector for the best value of the land i.e. Rs.1,33,330/-, therefore, is fair. Needless to add that I have not gone into the various exhibited sale deeds for determining the just, fair and reasonable market value of the acquired land in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties at the Bar.” Keeping in view the aforesaid position, the present appeals are allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent that the claimants shall be entitled to compensation @Rs.1,33,330/- per bigha. The claimants shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Sunder v. Union of India, reported in (2001) 7 SCC 211. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. May 29, 2009. (rana)