IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RFA No.7 of 2001. Date of decision: 14.06.2010. Shri Dila Ram & Others … …Appellants Versus State of H.P. & Others … …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Appellants: Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr.B.C. Verma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. For Respondents No.4: Mr.Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate to 9. with Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The petitioners, appellants herein, are the claimants who have instituted this appeal against the award of the learned District Judge, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr. 2. By a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter referred to as the `Act’) dated 5.3.1988 (published in the H.P. State Gazette on 18.6.1988), the land and house of the petitioners as also the other land situated at Jhakri was acquired by 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 Nathpa Jhakri Power Project for construction of residential accommodation for its staff. 3. The Collector Land Acquisition had determined a sum of Rs.1,44,290/- as market value of the house property of the petitioners, whereas the petitioners have claimed a sum of Rs.2,96,000/-. It was submitted before the learned Reference Court that the Land Acquisition Collector had not correctly determined the market value of the land. The case of the petitioners was that the land was situated in a fast developing and upcoming area of Jhakri. The land was abutting National Highway-22 and there were all facilities of a school, hospital, telegram center and market. It was prime land and was the centre of trade and commerce of 10-15 Panchayats of Shimla and Kullu Districts. The case of the petitioners further was that as proved by PW-3 Subhash Anand value of the land was favourably comparable with that of the land purchased by PW-3 Subhash Anand. Three registered sale deeds of 1987 which, according to the petitioners, were also a close proximity to the date of acquisition Ex.PW-2/A, Ex.PW- 2/B and Ex.PW-2/C were also proved on the record. On the evidence, PW-5, B.S. Kamal, had purchased 63 hectares of land on 3.8.1985 vide sale deed Ex.PW-5/A for Rs.20,000/- and according to the petitioners, the sale deed proved on the record provided for probe the compensation of Rs.two lacs per bigha. 3 4. Learned Court below ignored three sale deeds in question i.e. Ex.PW-2/A, Ex.PW-2/B and Ex.PW-2/C because according to the Court, the petitioners had not examined the vendors or vendees of the sale deeds. On considering the evidence of PW-3 Subhash Anand, the Court found that he had purchased the land, subject matter of Ex.PW-2/B, where the acquired land was situated near Rampur. The acquired land was at a distance of about 5 Kilometers from the acquired land. The Court also holds that this land is of commercial importance. So far as the evidence of PW-5 B.S. Kamal is concerned, he has proved on record Ex.PW-5/A. This land was purchased on 3.8.1985 and was abutting the National Highway-22, whereas the acquired land according to the learned Court was at a distance of more than 100 meters from the road. 5. Learned Court then proceeds to hold that the best evidence for determining the market value of the land would be authentic transaction of sale relating to acquired land or a portion thereof which can be favourably compared with the land covered by the acquired land. 6. The petitioners have also placed reliance on the award dated 23.7.1991, passed by the learned District Judge (Forest), Shimla, whereby the market value of the land at Jhakri, at the time of issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act, had been determined as Rs.one lac per bigha. The State had gone 4 in appeal against this award in RFA No.243/91 and this award had been considered and dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 11.8.1999, in the case reported as Land Acquisition Collector, HPSEB and Another vs. Rani Rajinder Kumari and Others, 2000(2) Shim.L.C.45, passed by this Court. The learned trial Court, placing reliance on this judgment, fixed the value of the land at Rs.one lac per bigha. On the question of value of house property, the learned Court awarded a sum of Rs.2,96,000/-. 7. Adverting to the cost of construction, I do not find that any reliance can be placed on the evidence of RW-1 K.K. Gupta. Learned trial Court rightly holds that the evidence of this witness, who was the Executive Engineer, could not be relied upon as he had not properly worked out the details of the material used and has simply recorded the market value at Rs.1,44,290/-. At the same time learned Court also declines to accept the evidence of PW-4 in toto, who worked out the market value at Rs.2,96,000/-, on the ground that he has not taken into consideration the under specification works/items in use in the building in question. Learned Court then proceed to assess the value of the constructed portion at Rs.1,75,894/- by holding that some local material had also been used for the construction of the house. This calculation is based on allowing of increase in the 5 cost of living index as also some guess work by the State. 8. I do not find that the learned Court below has been correct in assessing the value of the house. In case, the evidence was not to be accepted, there should have been some basis for working out this figure. The roughshod estimate should be on the average arrived at. In this case, the best indicator would be the two values calculated i.e. the values calculated by the respondents and the petitioners when totalling both it works out to Rs.4,40,000/- and when averaged it is Rs.2,20,000/-. In these circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things that in case an additional sum of Rs.50,000/-, over and above what has been awarded by the learned Reference Court, is awarded towards the construction. So far as the compensation of land is concerned, it is undisputed before me that the SJVN has settled cases out of Court with a number of claimants (See: RFA No.358 of 2000, titled: S.J.V.N. vs. Dila Ram and Others, disposed of on 25.9.2007). The petitioner shall be entitled to the compensation as has been awarded in the compromise in that appeal, as aforesaid, if it is higher than that awarded by the Reference Court in this appeal. June 14, 2010. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.