IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RFA Nos. 2 and 103 of 2001. Judgment Reserved on 16th November, 2009. Date of decision 19th November, 2009. 1.RFA 2 of 2001 along with C.O. 64 of 2001. State of H.P. & others v. Het Ram and another. 2.RFA 103 of 2001. State of H.P. & others v. Jivat Ram and others. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellants Mr. R.K.Bawa, Advocate General, with Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. AG. For the respondents Mr. G.D.Verma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. B.C.Verma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. These appeals are being disposed of together as they arise out of a common judgment passed by the learned reference Court. Both the cases having been consolidated and tried together by an order passed by the reference Court passed on 4.10.1994 on an application filed by the claimants that these two cases 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - along with other petitions be tried together as they involve common questions of law and fact. The undisputed facts are that the lands of the respondents in these two appeals was acquired by a common notification issued by the State Government under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 2.5.1989 wherein the land of the respondent-claimants herein along with that of other persons was acquired for the purpose of Bajeer Bowri Jhakri road. Seven reference petitions under Section 18 of the Act were consolidated together by the learned Court below. In RFA 2 of 2001, land of Het Ram and another, measuring 1 bigha 11 biswas and in RFA 103 of 2001, land of Jevat Ram and others measuring 1.3 bighas was acquired. There are two claimants in FAO 2 of 2001 and three claimants in RFA 103 of 2001. The Collector made his award on 27.10.2001 awarding compensation on the basis of the quality of land as detailed in the petition. The respondent- claimants being dissatisfied from the claim prayed for increase in the awarded amount claiming that the assessment made was not in consonance with the principles as required by Section 23(1) (A) of the Act. After consideration of evidence and - 3 - material on record, the learned District Judge awarded Rs.75,000/- per bigha of the land classified as Bathal Aval and Bathal doem. The State being aggrieved by the award is now in appeal before this Court. The grievance of the appellant State is that just compensation has not been paid, rather the learned Court below has unduly inflated the amount to be paid to the respondents. It is urged that the acquired land was situated across the river Sutlej and there was no road connecting this land with the main town of Rampur Bushahar. Resultantly, the value could not be as high as assessed as facilities in the nature of schools, hospital, government offices, educational institutions and commercial facilities etc. were not available to the claimants. The learned Advocate General has argued with vehemence that evidence on record does not support the conclusions arrived at by learned Court below. Before dealing with the submissions of the parties, it may be noticed that a similar question arose for determination of compensation in RFA 22 of 2001, titled State of Himachal Pradesh & others v. Gumat Ram and others, where the acquired lands were situated across river - 4 - Sutluj. This appeal was dismissed by me by judgment dated 30.10.2009. I may also add that in these two appeals also there is hardly any evidence produced by the State to show that the value of the land is less or that it does not possess advantages of being connected to Rampur town. Only one witness RW-1 has been produced by the respondents, who has proved on record Ex. RW-1/A which is the annual average of the value of the land. There is no evidence of the sale deeds on which this average is based. I have also noted that holdings of the petitioner- respondents are not large and the sale instances which are impugned by the appellant stating that they are areas which are small cannot be accepted. The evidence on record shows that the acquired lands are situated at 10 minutes walking distance from Rampur Bushahar town. Although the village is not connected by RCC bridge, but nonetheless, it is connected by a bridge used by the villagers for accessing the town. I cannot persuade myself to accept the submission that the lands are situated in a place where they have all the disadvantages of being inaccessible. The evidence of witnesses on record, namely PW-1 Het Ram, PW-2 Padam Singh, PW-3 Jivat Ram, PW-4 Mangal Chand, PW-5 Mehar Singh, PW-6 Keshav Singh, PW-7 and PW-8 Prem - 5 - Chand, PW-9 Rewat Ram and PW-10 Om Dutt is unanimous that the acquired land and village where it is situated are connected to the town of Rampur Bushahar which has all the modern facilities, has remained unrebutted on record. No other point has been urged. These appeals are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending applications shall stand dismissed. C.O. No. 64 of 2001 in RFA 2/2001. The claimants being dissatisfied with the award seek increase in the award of compensation by the learned Reference Court. In the Cross Objections, the pleadings are that 1.11 bighas of land of the petitioners has been acquired by the State and that its classification has not been correctly assessed. The claimants/ cross objectors claim Rs.1,30,000/- with respect to the area measuring 1.11 bighas. The learned Reference Court while considering the evidence on record has not considered the entire instances brought on record by the cross objectors but has solely based its judgment on the ground that there is a possibility of the prices being manipulated because there were acquisition proceedings for this road in other areas. On the question of - 6 - the acquired land being possessed of advantages of nearness to the town etc., the learned Court holds that there is no evidence on record to show that the land was possessed of such advantages. These findings cannot be sustained. I find from the record that the witnesses of the claimants, namely PW-1 Het Ram, PW-2 Padam Singh, PW-3 Jivat Ram, PW-4 Mangal Chand, PW-5 Mehar Singh, PW-6 Keshav Singh, PW-7 and PW-8 Prem Chand, PW-9 Rewat Ram and PW-10 Om Dutt are unanimous in their evidence regarding advantages possessed by the nearness of the acquired land to Rampur Bushahar. They state that the land is situated at 10 minutes walking distance from Rampur town which has all amenities/ facilities in the nature of Central and State Government offices, educational institutions, medical facilities and a well equipped bazaar catering to all the daily needs of the residents of the area. This evidence has remained unrebutted. On the question of price fixing, the learned Court only conjectures and does not base its judgment on any evidence. Ex. PW-10/A, is sale deed dated 16.4.1988 with respect to 4 biswas of land in village Chhati for Rs.26,000/-. In other words, the cost of the land would work out to Rs.1,30,000/- per bigha. PW-8 has proved on - 7 - record Ex.PW-8/A, sale deed dated 22.3.1989 for 4 biswas of land in village Chhati for Rs.32,000/-. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 2.5.1989. In these circumstances, it would be safe to assess the value of the acquired land on the basis of Ex.PW-10/A, that is Rs.1,30,000/- per bigha. Since the land was acquired for the purpose of construction of a road, it is not the quality but the potential of the land and its nearness to the town and the facilities which are available which would be a safe indicator to estimate true value of the acquired land. Deducted 20% towards cost of development etc., the value of the land can safely be fixed at Rs.1,04,000/-. The findings of the learned Court below that there may be possibility of manipulation of prices, cannot be accepted since sale deed Ex.PW-10/A has been executed on 16.4.1988, practically one year before the notification under Section 4 of the Act. Cross objections are accordingly allowed. A flat rate of Rs.1,02,000/- per bigha is granted to the respondents. Needless to add that the cross objectors will be entitled to all the other statutory benefits in the nature of compulsory acquisition charges, interest etc. Cross - 8 - objections are accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. November 19, 2009(PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.