IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA No. 124 of 2003 with RFA Nos. 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177 and 178 of 2003. Judgement reserved on: 23.5.2008. Date of decision: May 27, 2008. [ For title, please see pages (i) & (ii) ] Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate. ( in all nine appeals). Kuldip Singh, Judge. This judgement shall dispose of nine appeals, i.e. RFA Nos. 124, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177 and 178 of 2003, which have arisen out of common award, dated 22.8.2000, passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, in Land Ref. Case Nos. 38, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39 and 40 of 1999, respectively. 2. The facts in brief are that State of Himachal Pradesh acquired land for construction of Namhol- Bahadurpur road for which notification, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) was published on 27.9.1995. The Land Acquisition Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? - 2 - Collector (for short, the Collector), passed the award on 20.3.1997. The details of lands of the respondents and compensation awarded to them by the Collector, as referred in the impugned award, are as follows :- Sr. No. No. & name of petition. Total area acquired. Compensation awarded. 1. 32 of 1999, Kanshi Ram etc. Vs. LAC. 3-17 bighas Rs. 15,696-00 2. 33 of 1999, Smt. Basanti Devi Vs. LAC Hari Lal 12 biswas 1-03 bigha Rs. 6,103/- Rs. 12,205/- 3. 34 of 1999, Smt. Basanti Devi vs. LAC. 7 biswas Rs. 2,819/- 4. 35 of 1999, Kansi Ram etc. vs. LAC. 12 biswas Rs. 4,266/- 5. 36 of 1999, Sukh Ram etc. Vs. LAC. 1-2 bigha Rs. 3,151/- 6. 37 of 1999, Sant Ram vs. LAC. 2-3 bighas Rs. 9,087/- 7. 38 of 1999, Smt. Shiv Dei. vs. LAC 9 biswas Rs. 3,759/- 8. 39 of 1999 Anant Ram etc. vs. LAC. 2-5 bighas Rs. 15,589/- 9. 40 of 1999 Balak Ram etc. vs. LAC 2-2 bighas Rs. 10,059/- 3. The respondents were aggrieved by the award of the Collector, therefore, they filed reference petitions for enhancement of - 3 - compensation. The learned District Judge, vide order dated 15.11.1999, in Land Reference Petition No. 31 of 1999, titled Gandhi vs. LAC, consolidated the reference petitions. The Collector contested the reference petitions. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the petitioners of these petitions are entitled to enhanced amount of compensation, if so, to what extent? OPP. 2. Relief. 4. The learned District Judge, vide award dated 22.8.2000, has assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.1,20,000/- per bigha. It was held that the respondents are entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% on the enhanced amount of compensation, additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) of the Act at the rate of 12% per annum from 27.9.1995 to 20.3.1997, 9% interest for one year from 20.3.1997 and thereafter interest at the rate of 15% per annum till the amounts are paid or deposited by the Collector. The above appeals have been filed against the common award dated 22.8.2000. 5. I have heard Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. A.K.Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant, Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondents in all appeals and gone through the record. On behalf of the appellant in each appeal, it has been submitted that learned District Judge has erred in assessing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.6000/- per biswa or Rs.1,20,000/- per bigha. The learned - 4 - District Judge has misinterpreted and misconstrued the award dated 20.5.2000 Ex. PX in assessing the market value of the acquired land. 6. On behalf of the respondents, it has been submitted that except for tendering in evidence sale deed Ex. R-1 and notification Ex. R-2, the Collector has not led any evidence and rebutted the case of the opposite side. The respondents have led legal evidence on record. The learned District Judge has rightly appreciated the material on record and determined the market value of the acquired land after relying award dated 20.5.2000 Ex. PX. It has been submitted that award, dated 20.5.2000 Ex. PX, has been upheld by this Court in RFA Nos. 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 94 and 1000 of 2001, decided by a common judgement, dated 14.3.2008. The learned counsel for the respondents has thus supported the impugned award. 7. PW 1 Gandhi has stated that his 10 biswas land was acquired for construction of Namhol- Bahadurpur road and he was paid Rs.1088.18 compensation. The market value of his land was Rs.10,00,000/- per bigha at the time of acquisition. In cross- examination, he has stated that he cannot produce any proof of market value of the acquired land. PW 2 Jasjit Singh has stated that he has sold 1 biswa land in village Ghial to Sant Ram for Rs.15,000/- on 10,8,1992, vide registered sale deed, a copy Ex. PA. He had received full consideration amount from the vendee. Smt. Tripat Kaur her mother had also sold 1 biswa land to Dhani Ram on 10.8.1992 vide registered sale deed, a copy Ex. PB for a consideration of Rs.15,000/-. Smt. Tripat Kaur on the same day had also sold 1 biswa land to Shankar Dass for a consideration of Rs.15,000/-, vide sale deed - 5 - Ex. PC. The land which was sold to Shankar Dass is situated in village Ghial. In cross examination, he has stated that Sant Ram had constructed a shop on the land which was sold to him. The distance between the acquired land and the land sold by him is about half kilometer. He has denied that sale deeds were executed fictitiously for getting more compensation. 8. PW 3 Nand Lal has stated that he had purchased 1 biswa land from Dharmender in village Ghial for Rs.15,000/- in the year 1992 vide sale deed, copy Ex. PD. He had paid the entire sale consideration to Dharmender. He had seen the acquired land and quality of that land was better than the land which he purchased from Dharmender. In cross examination, he has denied that sale deed Ex. PD is a fictitious document and inflated sale price has been recorded in the said sale deed. The learned counsel representing the claimants- respondents had tendered in evidence Ex. PX copy of award dated 20.5.2000. The Deputy District Attorney had tendered copy of sale deed Ex. R-1 and copy of notification Ex. R-2 and closed the evidence. 9. The land measuring 4 bighas 1 biswa was sold vide sale deed Ex. R-1 for a sale consideration of Rs.20,500/-. This sale deed was tendered in evidence, but neither the vendor nor the vendee of this sale deed has been examined. There is nothing on record to show the comparability of the land covered by sale deed Ex. R-1 and the acquired land. In these circumstances, the sale deed Ex. R-1 cannot be relied for determining the market value of the acquired land. 10. PW 2 Jasjit Singh vide sale deed Ex. PA dated 10.8.1992 had sold 1 biswa land to Sant Ram for Rs.15,000/-. Similarly, Tripat - 6 - Kaur had sold 1 biswa land each to Dhani Ram and Shankar Dass in village Ghial on 10.8.1992 for Rs.15,000/-. PW 3 Nand Lal had purchased 1 biswa land in village Ghial for Rs.15,000/- on 25.5.1992, vide sale deed copy Ex. PD. PW 3 Nand Lal has also stated that acquired land was better in comparison to land which he has purchased vide Ex. PD. The sale deeds Ex. PA, Ex. PB, Ex. PC and Ex. PD are of 1 biswa land each and therefore, these sale transactions are of small areas in comparison to land measuring 33-10 bighas acquired vide notification, dated 27.9.1995. However, the sale deeds Ex. PA, Ex. PB, Ex. PC and Ex. PD, are of the period prior to publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act, which was published on 27.9.1995. There is nothing on record to show that these sale deeds are not genuine. There is no dispute that the acquired land is situated in village Ghial and the aforesaid sale deeds also pertain to lands situated in village Ghial. Therefore, these sale deeds can be safely relied for assessing the market value of the acquired land. 11. In Ravinder Narain and another vs. Union of India, 2003 (4) SCC 481 and Rishi Pal Singh and others vs. Meerut Development Authority and another 2006 (3) SCC 205, the Apex Court has held that it cannot be laid down as an absolute proposition that the rates fixed for the small plots cannot be the basis for fixation of the rate. If there is no material, it is open to the court in appropriate cases to make comparison of the prices paid for small plots of land. However, in such cases, necessary deductions/ adjustments have to be made while determining the prices. There is no bar for considering exemplars of small plots. Therefore, the sale deeds Ex. PA, Ex. PB, - 7 - Ex. PC and Ex. PD can be relied for determining the market value of the acquired land, of-course suitable deduction/ adjustment will have to be made to fix the market value of the acquired land. 12. The learned District Judge has also relied award dated 20.5.2000 Ex. PX for determining the market value of the acquired land. In RFA Nos. 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 94 and 100 of 2001, decided by this court by a common judgement dated 14.3.2008, award dated 20.5.2000 passed in Land Reference Cases No. 23, 26, 28, 22, 29, 27, 21, 30 and 25 of 1999, respectively, has already been upheld, which is none-else but Ex. PX. The award Ex. PX pertains to land acquired for Namhol- Bahadurpur road at village Ghial. In the impugned award the land involved is of village Ghial. In award Ex. PX the market value has been assessed at Rs.6,000/- per biswa or Rs.1,20,000/- per bigha. Therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned award when learned District Judge has relied award Ex. PX for determining the market value of the acquired land. As per sale deeds Ex. PA, Ex. PB, Ex. PC and Ex. PD market value comes to Rs.15,000/- per biswa. The learned District Judge has assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.6,000/- per biswa. Therefore, applying the law laid down by the Apex Court noticed above and after applying appropriate deduction from the market value, which comes on the basis of sale deeds Ex. PA, Ex. PB, Ex. PC and Ex. PD, the market value of Rs.6,000/- per biswa determined by the learned District Judge of the acquired land is just and reasonable and it cannot be said that the market value assessed by the learned Reference Court is on the higher side. The appellant in all the cases have failed to make out any - 8 - case for interference. No fault can be found with the other payments and interests awarded by the learned Reference Court in the impugned award. The Reference Court has rightly appreciated the material on record. No case for interference has been made out. 13. No other point was urged. 14. The result of the above discussion, all appeals being RFA Nos. 124, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177 and 178 of 2003 are dismissed. The award dated 22.8.2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur in each case is upheld. No costs. May 27, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge. - 9 - (i) 1. RFA No. 124 of 2003 Land Acquisition Collector ….. Appellant. Vs. Shiv Dei ….. Respondent. 2. RFA No. 171 of 2003 Land Acquisition Collector ….. Appellant. Vs. Kanshi Ram & anr. ….. Respondents. 3. RFA No. 172 of 2003 Land Acquisition Collector ….. Appellant. Vs. Basanti Devi & anr. ….. Respondents. 4. RFA No. 173 of 2003 Land Acquisition Collector ….. Appellant. Vs. Basanti Devi ….. Respondent. 5. RFA No. 174 of 2003 Land Acquisition Collector ….. Appellant. Vs. Kanshi Ram & ors. ….. Respondents. 6. RFA No. 175 of 2003 Land Acquisition Collector ….. Appellant. Vs. Sukh Ram & anr. ….. Respondents. 7. RFA No. 176 of 2003 Land Acquisition Collector ….. Appellant. Vs. - 10 - (ii) Sant Ram ….. Respondent. 8. RFA No. 177 of 2003 Land Acquisition Collector ….. Appellant. Vs. Anant Ram & ors. ….. Respondents. 9. RFA No. 178 of 2003 Land Acquisition Collector ….. Appellant. Vs. Balak Ram & ors. ….. Respondents. ………….