IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: RFA.No.130/2003. Date of Decision:26th August, 2008. State of H.P. and another. …Appellants. Versus: Leela Dutt and another. …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting?1 .No. For the appellants: Mr.Vivek Thakur, Addl. Advocate General with Mr.Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General. For Respondent . Mr.B.S.Kanwar, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J (Oral). The present appeal arises out of the award dated 26th May, 2000 passed by Additional District Judge, Shimla, H.P. in Land Reference No. 13-S/4 of 1994 titled as Molak Ram and others Vs. State of H.P. and another, enhancing the compensation payable to the land owners from Rs. 1040/- per bigha to Rs. 1,50,000/- per bigha. For the public purpose, namely, construction of Shoghi-Salana road, claimants’ land measuring 2-3-0 bighas comprising Khewat Khatoni No. 2/4 min, Khasra Nos. 378,380 and 415, Khata Khatoni No.21/33 Khasra No.70 situate in Mauza Gavhi, Pargana Kushala, Tehsil and District, Shimla, H.P., was acquired vide Notification dated 17th July, 1989 (published on 23rd December, 1989) issued under Section 4 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 of the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The Land Acquisition Collector, in terms of its award No.5 of 1992 dated 11th May, 1992, awarded the compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs.1040/- per bigha for this land of category ‘Banjar Kadeem’. Being dis-satisfied with the same, the claimants filed a reference petition under Section 18 of the ‘Act’ claiming enhancement of the compensation at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per bigha apart from the value of the trees (fruit growing and non fruit growing) standing on the acquired land. In all the claimants examined six witnesses to prove on record the sale transaction (Ext.PW-6/A) and also the award (Ext.PW-1/B) dated 10th March, 1995 passed in Land Reference Case No. 133-S/4 of 1993 by the Additional District Judge, Shimla, pertaining to the acquisition proceedings initiated in the adjoining village with regard to the very same public purpose. The respondents, instead of various opportunities did not produce any evidence (documentary or oral). Appreciating the material on record, the Tribunal enhanced the compensation of the acquired land from Rs.1040/- per bigha to Rs.1,50,000/- per bigha and directed that the interest on the amount be paid w.e.f. 1st May, 1983 the date of taking over the possession of the acquired land. 3 Both the claimants as also the State have filed the appeal and cross objections which are being disposed of by this common judgment. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and also perused the record. The dates with regard to the Notification, the location of the acquired land as also the right of the claimants to clam compensation is not in dispute. Sh. Leela Dutt (PW-1), Sh. Shiv Ram (PW-2), Sh. Bishan Dutt Sharma (PW-3), Sh. Daya Ram (PW-4), Sh. Tara Chand (PW-5) and Sh. Ashwani Sood (PW-6) have deposed on behalf of the claimants. From the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses, it is evident that the land is acquired for public purpose, namely, construction of Shogi-Salana road and the entire land has been utilized for the said public purpose. It is also evident that the acquired land is situated at a distance of about 400 metres from the National Highway No.21. It has also come in evidence that at the short distance from the acquired land the State Government has set up an Industrial area where large numbers of Industries have come up and also in the close vicinity, the H.P. Housing Board has set up a housing colony. Shoghi is a commercial hub on the National Highway is also borne out from the record. PW-1 has proved on record award (Ext. PW-1/B). The said award also pertains to the very same public purpose but is of the adjoining village. As per this award, a sum of Rs. 4 1,50,000/- per bigha has been awarded to the claimants therein. The similarity and the proximity of the acquired land with that of the land covered under the said award has been proved by PW-1 and other witnesses examined by the claimants. Sh. Tara Chand (Pw-1), Patwari, has proved on record the revenue record (Ext.PW-5/A to Ext.PW-5/C) from which it is evident that the road has been constructed through the claimants’ land dividing it into two portions as a result the remaining land cannot be utilized properly. The claimants have orally deposed that the market value of the land at the time of the initiation of the acquisition proceedings was approximately Rs. 4,00,000/-. However, only one sale deed (Ext.PW-6/A) has been proved by Sh. Ashwani Sood (PW-6). The said sale pertains to the year 1991, therefore, the same was rightly not considered for the purpose of determining the compensation payable for the acquired land. The market value of the acquired land has to be determined keeping in view the various factors as has been repeatedly laid down by the Apex Court in the various judicial preannouncements. The claimants have proved on record the location, similarity and potentiality of the land which could be put to commercial use. The court below has determined the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- per bigha as compensation payable to the claimants on the basis of guess work keeping in view the 5 various attending circumstances including its location and potentiality etc. PW-5 has categorically deposed that the land in question was classified as ‘A’ class as it was situated just about 500 metres away from the National Highway. It has also been observed that the claimants’ land was bifurcated due to the acquisition proceedings rendering the remaining land to be of not much use. Even though the court below has determined the market vale on the basis of the guess work, but, in my view, the benefit of the award (Ext.PW-1/B) could be extended to the claimants while considering the question as to whether the claimants have been awarded just and fair compensation for the acquisition of their acquired land and also as to whether the same is the true market value at which the purchaser would be willing to buy the land from the seller in an open market. In my view, I find no error in the market value determined by the court below. The interest on the compensation, of course, could not have been awarded from the date of the possession i.e. 1st May, 1983 as has been held by the court below. Since the award was published in the H.P. Rajpatra on 23rd December, 1989, therefore, the interest shall be payable to the claimants from the said date. The impugned award is modified to the said extent. I have examined the entire evidence on record. In my view, there is no scope of further enhancement of 6 compensation awarded by the court below, therefore, no interference is warranted. The claimants shall be entitled to statutory benefits including the interest on the solatium in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sunder Vs. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211. The appeal is partly allowed and the cross objections are disposed of for the aforesaid reasons. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. August 26, 2008(R)