IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. RFA No. 88 of 2004 Date of Decision : November 20, 2008 LAC and another …Appellants. Versus: Parkash Chand and others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellants: Mr. R. K. Bawa, A. G. with Mr. Vivek Thakur,Addl. A. G. For the respondents. Mr.Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate. SANJAY KAROL, JUDGE (Oral). The claimants land comprising Khasra Nos.198/234, 962/882/1, measuring 1-13 bighas situate in village Behna Jattan, Pargana Geharwin, Tehsil Ghumarwin, Distt. Bilaspur, H.P., was acquired by the State of H. P. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued on 26.4.1989, which was lastly published in the H. P. Rajpatra on 10.8.1989. The Collector’s Award No.19/1994 dated 27.9.1992 was issued, whereby the market value with regard to the different classifications of the land was fixed as under:- 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Sr. No. Kind of land Per bigha value 1. Anderli Awal Rs.14643.88 2. Anderli Doem Rs.12983.42 3. Baharli Doem Rs. 2762.44 4. Banjar & Khadyatar Rs. 1657.45 (20 biswas = 1 bigha) Feeling dissatisfied with the same, the claimants filed Land Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Act and the Court below framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to enhanced amount of compensation on account of the acquisition of their land, if so, to what extent and amount? ……OPP 2. Relief. Adequate opportunity to lead evidence was afforded to the parties. Appreciating the material on record (oral and documentary), the Court below after referring to and relying upon a decision of this Court in Gulabi vs. State of H.P. (AIR 1998 HP 9) as also the exemplar sale deed Ext.P, placed on record by the claimants, enhanced the market value of the acquired land to Rs.4000/- per biswa irrespective of the classification of the land. The State has assailed the impugned Award dated 20.4.2002 passed by the District Judge, Bilaspur, in Land Ref. Case No.48 of 1999 on the ground that the compensation awarded is much on the higher side. 3 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. In order to prove its case, the claimant Parkash Chand examined himself as PW-1, Shri Sohan Lal (PW-2) and tendered in evidence copy of the Award dated 27.11.2000 (Ext.PX) and certified copies of the revenue record Ext.PB & Ext.PC. No evidence was led by the respondents except for tendering copies of the sale deeds Ext.R1 & Ext.R2 as also the copy of the Notification Ext.R3. In terms of the Award Ext.PX, the District Judge on 27.11.2000, enhanced the compensation awarded by the Collector from Rs.6,860.56 paise per bigha to Rs.91,875/- per bigha. The public purpose for which the land was acquired was same and similar, for which the instant land was acquired. The instant land is situated in village Behgal and the land pertaining to Ext.PX pertains to village Marohiyan, which is stated to be adjoining to village Behgal. In terms of the Award Ext.PX, the market value of the land comes to Rs.5200/- per biswa but, however, the Court below, after referring to and relying upon the exemplar sale deeds determined the market value at the rate of Rs.4000/- per biswa. The Award Ext.PX has attained finality. This fact is also not disputed in the appeal. Be that as it may be, the claimants have proved the sale transaction Ext.PA. The exemplar sale land in village Behna 4 Jattan was sold in the year 1997 at Rs.4000/- per biswa. PW-1 has proved that village Behgal where the acquired land is situated and village Behna Jattan are adjoining and the road passes through the land. It appears that from the statement of PW-1, possession of the land was actually taken in the year 1980 when the road was constructed and it was only in the year 1989, after the area was well connected by roads that the Notification for acquisition of the land was issued. The Court has considered the entire material while arriving at its conclusion. I see no error in the same. The exemplar sale deeds Ext.R1 and Ext.R2 placed on record by the State have rightly been rejected for the reason that there was nothing on record to prove the similarity between the acquired land and the land covered by the said sale deeds. They were merely tendered in evidence. Since the entire acquired land has been utilized for the purpose of construction of road, therefore, in my view, the Court below has rightly appreciated the ratio of law laid down by this Court in Gulabi (supra) by uniformly applying the rates and awarding compensation irrespective of its classification. The Apex Court in Sunder vs. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211) has held that the claimants are entitled to all statutory benefits (solatium and interest) on the enhanced amount of compensation. Apparently in the impugned award, interest on solatium has not been awarded. The law of the Apex Court is 5 mandatorily required to be complied with by all authorities as mandated by Articles 141-444 of the Constitution of India. As such, the claimants shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits in terms of the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment. The impugned Award is modified to the aforesaid extent. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. November 20, 2008. (rana)