IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. RFA No. 1 of 2004 with RFA No.2 of 2004 Date of Decision : November 26, 2008 RFA No. 1 of 2004 Hem Lata & Others …Appellants. Versus: State of H. P. & Others …Respondents. RFA No. 2 of 2004 Roop Daman Singh & another …Appellants. Versus: State of H. P. & Others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellants : Mr. B. N. Misra, Advocate For the respondents. Mr. R. K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Vikas Rathour, Dy. A. G. SANJAY KAROL, JUDGE (Oral). The present appeals arise out of a common Award dated 3.9.2003 passed by the District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., in L.A. C. Petition No. 8-LAC/4 of 2002 titled as Hem Lata & Others. vs. State of H.P. & Others, and L.A. C. Petition No. 9-LAC/4 of 2002 titled as Roop Daman & another vs. State of H.P. & Others. The claimants in the appeals have challenged the impugned Award on the ground that while deciding issues No.2 & 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3, the material on record has not been considered by the Court below while arriving at its conclusion. For the public purpose, namely, construction of Kumarhatti-Nahan-Paonta Road, the claimants land situate in village Khajuria, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmaur, H. P. was acquired by the State. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act), was issued on 5.7.1996 (published in Rajpatra on 3.8.1996). The Award No. 15/2001 dated 12.2.2002 was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 11 of the Act, determining different market rates for different classifications/categories of land. In the Award, the Collector found that no superstructure(Gharat)/trees were existing on the land and as such, nothing was awarded towards the same. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed a Land Reference Petition claiming enhancement of not only the market value of the acquired land but also claimed compensation with regard to the trees and superstructure(Gharat) existing on the acquired land. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Court below famed the following issues :- 1) Whether the State has acquired the suit property in the year 1961-62? …….OPP 2) Whether the acquired land was having Sal and other trees standing on the land, if so its effect? …….OPP 3) Whether there was a Gharat (Water mill) existing over then land? …….OPP 3 4) What was the market value of the land and whether the petitioners are entitled to the enhanced compensation? ……OPP 5) Relief. Opportunity to adduce evidence was given by the Court to both the parties. Appreciating the material on record (oral and documentary), the Court below enhanced the market value of the land to Rs.1,12,500/- per bigha regardless of the category and classifications of the land. Admittedly, the land of the claimants is not of Kuhal Awal category, for which the Collector had awarded Rs.1,87,500/- per bigha. Issues No.1 & 4 were decided accordingly. While deciding issues No.2 & 3, the Court below came to the conclusion that there is no material on record to prove that any superstructure (Gharat) or Sal trees were in existence on the acquired land at the time of acquisition. The State has not filed the appeal challenging the impugned Award, therefore, the issue of enhancement of the market value of the acquired land in the impugned Award is not being examined. With regard to issues No.2 & 3, it has come in evidence that the possession of the land was actually taken in the year 1960 when the road was constructed. Unfortunately, the claimants were deprived of their constitutional rights and it was much later that the acquisition proceedings were initiated with the issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the year 1996. This fact is evident from letters Ext.P5 & Ext.P6 proved by 4 Shri Ramesh Kumar (PW-5), J.E. (B&R) PWD. The report of the D.F.O, Nahan, records that in the year 1961, it “appears that on the claimants land there appear to be 30 ‘A’ Class and 15 ‘B’ Class trees of Sal”. The said report, in my view, cannot be relied upon to prove the existence of the trees on the acquired land for the simple reason that it was prepared in the year 2000, whereas the actual possession of the land was taken in the year 1961. Further, the claimants owned and possessed large chunk of land and only part of the land out of the same was acquired. The report appears to have been prepared with regard to the entire land holding of the claimants. Apart from the aforesaid evidence, there is nothing on record to prove the claim of the trees and superstructure (Gharat). The Court below has also considered the statements of Shri Partap Singh (PW-6), clerk from the office of D.F.O. and Shri Sher Singh (PW-8), while arriving at its conclusion. The material has been considered in its entirety. It cannot be said that the Court has wrongly appreciated the material. In my view, no ground for interference is made out, as there is nothing on record to prove any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. November 26, 2008. (rana)