IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RFA No. 159 of 2004 Reserved on : 11.3.2010 Decided on : 20.5.2010 Shri Gopal Singh and others ..…Appellants. Versus Collector, Land Acquisition and others …..Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge.. Whether approved for reporting? yes For the appellants : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For respondent No.1 : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. R.P.Singh, Asstt. Advocate General. For respondent No.2 : Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate, vice Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. None for other respondents. V.K. Sharma, Judge. Award dated 4.3.2004, passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, in reference petition No. 48 of 2001, titled Shri Hem Singh and others versus Collector, Land Acquisition, H.P.P.W.D and others, under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘the Act’), whereby the dispute as to apportionment of the amount of compensation between the parties to the present appeal has been decided in favour of respondents No. 2 to 4, is under challenge in the present appeal. ______________________________________________________ 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2. Whereas, respondents No. 2 to 4 and proforma respondent No.5 herein, were petitioners, respondent No.1 herein, was contesting respondent and the appellants herein, were proforma respondents No. 2 to 12, before the learned court below. They shall hereinafter be referred to as such. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that land situate in Mohal Nela, District Mandi, H.P., came to be acquired for a public purpose namely ‘construction of Mandi Nela Majhwar Road’. A dispute as to apportionment in respect of a part of the acquired land being ‘Gair Mumkin Abadi Deh’ bearing Khasra No. 282/1 of Khata Khatauni No. 190/214, measuring 0-1-11 bighas, arose between petitioners No. 1 & 2 on the one hand and petitioner No.3 on the other and consequently the Collector referred the dispute for decision to the learned court below under Section 30 of the Act. However, later on petitioner No.4 and proforma respondents No. 2 to 12, were also impleaded as such under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, by the learned court below vide order dated 5.11.2001. 4. A sum of Rs. 76,676/- was awarded as compensation by the Collector for the aforesaid land measuring 0-1-11 bighas. As per enquiry report submitted by the Naib Tehsildar of Land Acquisition office, Mandi, the land under reference was found in possession of petitioners No. 1 to 3. However, petitioner No.4 also laid claim to the same. 3 5. Consequently, the Collector referred the dispute to the decision of the court under Section 30 of the Act. The amount of compensation was also forwarded therewith through a cheque. 6. The parties to the dispute filed separate replies. The petitioners No. 1 to 3 filed joint reply and supported the report submitted by the Naib Tehsildar, Land Acquisition. According to them, petitioner No.4 has no right in the land under acquisition and is not entitled for compensation for the same. \ 7. By filing separate reply/objections petitioner No.4 averred that the land comprised of khasra No. 281, Abadi Deh, is coming in his possession and not that of petitioners No. 1 to 3, who are having their landed property at different places, whereas his landed property is adjoining to Abadi Deh of which acquitted land is a part. He has his cow shed in the Abadi Deh and tethers his cattle there and the entire land is fenced by him. The petitioners have wrongly procured the award of compensation in their favour. When he came to know about it, he submitted an application to the Land Acquisition Collector. It was further averred as under vide para 3 of the reply/objections:- “The Land Acquisition Collector again got the spot visited through their officials, recently, then it came to the knowledge of these officials that the entire land is coming in possession of the objector, but the report from such officer, whether sent or not is not in the knowledge of objector-applicant.The previous report of Naib Tehsildar was made with the connivance of Hem Singh, Prem Singh and Inder Pal. In this view of the matter the compensation amount is to be awarded only in favour of the objector.” 4 8. In their reply proforma respondents No. 2 to 12 averred that the acquired land is not possessed by the petitioners. It being Abadi Deh and has been inherited by the replying respondents alongwith the petitioners, they are also entitled for share in the amount of compensation. 9. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the learned court below:- 1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the amount as claimed by them OPP?. 2. Whether the proforma respondents are entitled to the amount as claimed by them? OPR. 3. Relief. 10. After the parties led evidence and were heard by the learned trial court, petitioners No. 1 to 3 were held entitled to the compensation awarded by the Collector and the reference was answered accordingly by holding issue No.1 in affirmative and issue No.2 in negative. 11. I have heard the learned counsel/Dy. Advocate General for the parties and perused the record. 12. I have no hesitation to say at the very outset that whereas the claim set up by petitioners No. 1 to 3 to the amount of compensation for the acquired land under reference on the basis of their possession over the same, is based on the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, the claim set up by petitioner No.4 and proforma respondents No. 2 to 12 is not substantiated by any cogent and reliable evidence and it being so, the learned court below has rightly held petitioners No. 1 to 3 to be entitled to the same and as such the impugned award dated 4.3.2004, does not call for any interference at the hands of 5 this court. The reasons to arrive at this conclusion are set out hereinafter. 13. Admittedly, the acquired land under reference forms part of Abadi Deh comprised in khasra No. 281. PW-3 Shri Roshan Lal, Naib Tehsildar, had conducted enquiry as to who was in possession of the acquired land. During such enquiry he was assisted by PW-6, Shri Tulsi Ram, Kanungo. They have proved the enquiry report(s) Ex.PW-6/A and Ex.PD, as also the statements Ex.PA, Ex. PB and Ex.PC, recorded during the course of such enquiry. A perusal whereof would go to show that the land in question in fact was found to be in possession of petitioners No. 1 to 3. A perusal of aks tatima Ex.PW-4/A proved in the evidence by PW-4 Shri Mahinder Kumar, Patwari and copies of missal haquiat 1997-98 Ex.PW-4/B, Ex.PW-4/C and Ex.PW-4/D, would further go to show that the land belonging to petitioners No. 1 to 3 and one Shri Jasbir Singh comprised of khasra Nos. 279, 282 and 283, adjoins the land of khasra No. 281 (Abadi Deh), a portion whereof has been acquired and is under reference in these proceedings. The deposition of PW-1, Shri Hem Singh, petitioner, is also in consonance with the documentary evidence discussed hereinabove. 14. To the contrary, self serving statement made by petitioner No.4 Shri Bihari Lal, as OW-1, has been rightly rejected by the learned court below for the reasons that he has categorically admitted that the land in question has not been inherited by them from their ancestors. He has also admitted that he has not produced any documentary evidence to show that the land owned by him is adjacent to the acquired land. Thus, in the absence of any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim for 6 compensation in respect of the acquired land, the categorical admission made by him as above would clinch the entire matter. 15. The oral evidence led by proforma respondents No. 2 to 12, which is also akin to that of petitioner No.4 (OW-1, Bihari Lal), has also been rightly excluded from consideration by the learned court below. 16. For the reasons stated above I see no lawful cause or basis for any interference with the impugned award dated 4.3.2004. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. May 20, 2010 (lsp)