IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFAs No. 283 of 2005, 284 of 2005, 375 of 2006 and 448 of 2006. Date of Decision: 21st July, 2010 1. RFA No. 283 of 2005 State of Himachal Pradesh and another Appellants Versus Mohan Dass and others Respondents 2. RFA No. 284 of 2005 State of Himachal Pradesh and another Appellants Versus Salig Ram and others Respondents 3. RFA No.375 of 2006 State of Himachal Pradesh and others Appellants Versus Chiranjiv Lal and others Respondents 4. RFA No. 448 of 2006 State of Himachal Pradesh and another Appellants Versus Pramodh Kumar and others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Mr.R.M.Bisht, Dy. Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr.Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 8 and M/s M.S.Thakur and Inderjeet Singh, Advocates, for respondents No.9(a) to 9(d) in RFA No.283 of 2005. Mr.Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 5 in RFA No.284 of 2005. Mr.Gulzar Singh Rathore, Advocate, for respondents in RFA No.375 of 2006. Mr.G.C.Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Deepak Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents in RFA No.448 of 2006 Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) CMP No.1190 of 2007 ion RFA No. 283 of 2005 Not pressed. Liberty granted to withdraw the amount falling to the applicants. The application is disposed of. RFAs No. 283 of 2005, 284 of 2005, 375 of 2006 and 448 of 2006. 2. All the aforesaid appeals arise out of the very same land acquisition proceedings. However, separate awards have been passed by the Court below in various Land Reference Petitions filed by the claimants which now stand assailed by way of separate appeals. 3. Chart depicting the land reference number, name of the parties and RFA number is as under:- Land Reference No. Name of the parties RFA No. 11-S/4 of 2003 Mohan Dass and others Vs. State of H.P. and another 283 of 2005 12-S/4 of 2003 Salig Ram and others Vs. State of H.P. and another 284 of 2005 54/4 of 2000 Chiranjiv Lal and others Vs. State of H.P. and others 375 of 2006 55/4 of 2000 Ganga Ram and others Vs. State of H.P. and another 448 of 2006 4. For the purpose of adjudicating the present appeals, the facts of RFAs No. 283 and 284 of 2004 are being considered. It is not disputed at the bar that sale deeds Ext.P-1 and Ext.P-2, have been placed on record of all the aforesaid Land Reference Petitions. The said sale transactions are being considered while adjudicating the present appeals. 3 5. For the public purpose, namely, construction of Tutu – Tara Devi road land in revenue village Bharyal, Tehsil and District Shimla was acquired by the State. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published in the official gazette on 24.5.1997. The Collector passed his award No.4/2000 dated 25.2.2000 whereby the market value of the acquired land was assessed at Rs.6,335.53 per Biswa (Rs.1,26,710/- per bigha). While determining the market value, The Collector Land Acquisition relied upon the market value of the adjoining revenue village Majthai. 6. Aggrieved of the same, various land owners filed various Land Reference Petitions under Section 18 of the Act. 7. In terms of the impugned common award two of such land reference petitions i.e. 11-S/4 of 2003 and 12-S/4 of 2003, stand adjudicated. The learned District Judge, after taking into account sale deeds placed on record and proved in accordance with law by the respective parties determined the market value of the acquired land to be Rs.14,770/- per biswa. 8. The claimants are satisfied with the award, but, however, the respondent-State has preferred these appeals. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 10. Now, there is no dispute that the acquired land falls in Mauza Bharyal, Tehsil and District Shimla. The entire acquired land belonging to all the land owners is not more than 11-06 bighas. The individual share holding is small. There is no dispute with regard to the category and classification of the acquired land. There is also no dispute that the claimants have not claimed separate compensation for the fruit bearing trees. 4 11. The Collector, Land Acquisition himself has assessed the market value of the acquired land on the basis of the average market value of the adjoining revenue village Majthai. His award, however, does not state the fact that at the relevant time no sale transaction in revenue village Bharyal had taken place. Consequently, the Collector erred in relying upon the average market value of the adjoining village, particularly when the claimants in the present case have been able to prove the sale transaction pertaining to Village Bharyal. 12. The claimants have placed on record five sale transactions. However, sale transactions Ext.P-1 and Ext.P-2 pertain to Village Bharyal and are consequently being considered for the purpose of deciding the present appeal. Notification for acquisition of land was published on 24.5.1997. Ext.P-1 dated 26.9.1996 is the sale transaction whereby 9 Biswas of land stood sold for a sum of Rs.1,90,000/-. This fact stands proved by Smt. Shankri Devi (PW-1). She has deposed that she has seen the acquired land, quality of which is better than her land. Importantly, there is no cross- examination by the State qua the genuineness of the sale transaction entered into by her. Similarly, sale transaction Ext.P-2 reflects sale of 5 biswas of land for a sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-. This transaction took place on 24.10.1996. Even PW-2 has stated that quality of the acquired land belonging to the claimant is better than his land. 13. Claimant Het Ram (Pw-3) in his deposition has claimed compensation at Rs.6 lacs per bigha. According to him Village Majthai is at a distance of 2 kms. from the acquired land and the land in Village Bharyal is having more value. There is no cross-examination to this effect either. Statement of Salig Ram (PW-4) is also to this effect. 5 14. State has not led any oral evidence. They have simply tendered in evidence sale deeds Exts.R-1, R-2 and R-3. There is nothing on record to prove the similarity of the acquired land with these exemplar sale transactions. Hence they are of no advantage to the State. 15. However, from the statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 it is evident hat the acquired land is not abutting the National Highway but at a distance of 1 km. therefrom. For this purpose certain deductions are required to be carried out from the market value reflected by sale transaction Ext.P-1 and Ext.P-2. The exemplar sale is abutting the National Highway. It is further noticeable that the sale transaction (Ext.P-1) is in favour of school and sale transaction (Ext.P-2) is with respect to small parcel of land. Importantly, the said sale transactions took place before October, 1996 and the Notification was issued in May, 1997. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that there has been rise in the market value of the land. 16. The mean of sale transactions reflected in terms of Ext.P-1 and Ext.P-2 comes to Rs.25,555/- per biswa. The Court below has awarded a sum of Rs.14,770/- per biswa. Thus taking a holistic view this sum appears to be just and fair. Balancing the negative and the positive factors, deduction to the extent of 40% is justifiable. The claimants must got compensation for the acquired land which is just, fair and reasonable. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, I find that no ground for interference is made out by the State and the present appeals are accordingly dismissed. 21st July, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.