HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No. 186 of 2002 Cross Objections No.224 of 2002 Reserved on: 15.5.2010 Decided on: 4.6.2010 Associate Cement Company Limited ………Appellant. Versus Hariman and another ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. For respondent No.1: Mr.Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Ajit Jaswal, Advocate. For respondent No.2: Mr.Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General and Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. V.K. Ahuja, J.: This judgment shall dispose of an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (here-in-after referred to as ‘the Act’) against the award, dated 27.6.2002 , passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. in Land Reference No.40 of 1997. This judgment shall also dispose of the Cross Objections filed by respondent No.1 for the enhancement of the impugned award passed by the learned trial Court. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the land of the petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) measuring 12-8 bighas situated in village Dhaun-Kothi, alongwith the lands situated in other villages, namely, Bilaspur Sadar, Baloh and Panjgain, was acquired for the construction of ACC ______________________________ Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - Factory. A notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 17.10.1992. The proceedings were conducted under the provisions of the Act and the Land Acquisition Collector entered into reference. He assessed the market value of the land in question category-wise as under: i) For Barani, Abadi and Bagicha – Rs.7,000/- per biswa ii) For Banjar and Khadyatar – Rs.5,000/- per biswa Thus, the petitioner was awarded a sum of Rs.16,96,000/- as compensation for the land, a sum of Rs.51,000/- for 169 plants and a sum of Rs.3,40,950/- was awarded as price for 1700 trees. A sum of Rs.5,17,917/- was awarded as compensation for five houses. The total compensation awarded was Rs.41,95,606.32P. 3. The petitioner filed reference petition under Section 18 of the Act for enhancing the compensation. Reply was filed by the respondent (present appellant). On conclusion of the case, the learned trial Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per biswa and also enhanced the compensation for the market value of acquired houses, which was fixed at Rs.10.00 lacs in total. The petitioner was also awarded solatium etc. under the provisions of the Act. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the said findings recorded by the learned District Judge, the ACC Company i.e. respondent No.2 before the learned District Judge for whom the land was acquired, had filed the present appeal. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. - 3 - 6. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant were two fold. Firstly that the compensation awarded by the learned trial Court was excessive and the Land Acquisition Collector had granted reasonable compensation which did not deserve to be enhanced accordingly. In regard to the houses, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the valuation was made by the Land Acquisition Collector by visual inspection only and no measurements of the built up area were carried out as the petitioner did not cooperate at the time when the houses were assessed, therefore, compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Collector was adequate and called for no interference by the learned trial Court. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel of respondent No.1 had supported by the impugned award for the reasons given therein supplementing it by the submission that the area in question was a fast developing area where the ACC Company had set up a cement factory and the area has seen all round development and the compensation awarded by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be excessive and it calls for no interference at this stage. 8. I will first consider the question in regard to the valuation for the land assessed at Rs.10,000 per biswa. The learned trial Court in coming to this conclusion had made a reference to the certified copies of the sale deeds Exts.P-3, P-5 and P-7, which were also considered by the learned trial Court in assessing the - 4 - market value of the land in question. It was observed that the sale deeds relating to the land situated either in the same village or in the immediate neighbourhood of the same show that the quality and potentiality of the land mentioned in sale transactions was similar to the acquired land. The sale deeds Ext.P-3 is dated 2.9.1992, Ext.P-5 is dated 18.4.1992 and Ext.P-7 is of 25.10.1991. These sale transactions had taken place sometime prior to the issuance of the notification on 17.10.1992 and as such these sale transactions can be said to be relevant for determination of the market value of the land. 9. A perusal of sale deed Ext.P-3 shows that the land was situated in Village Khater, Pargana and Tehsil Sadar, Bilaspur. The land in Ext.P-5 was situated in Village Panjgain, Pargana and Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur. The land in sale deed Ext.P-7 was in village Khater, Pargana and Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. The land in the present case was in Dhaun-Kothi. Petitioner Hariman stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and admitted that National Highway does not cross through the acquired land, but it is very near to the same. There is no material on record to show that all these villages whose sale transactions have been proved above were near to the acquired land in Village Dhaun-Kothi. However, the evidence shows that all these lands in sale transactions Exts.P-3, P-5 and P-7 were of Bilaspur District and of the same Pargana and Sub Division Bilaspur. The average price, per biswa, of the land involved in these sale transactions - 5 - comes to Rs.24,700/-. Since the aforesaid sale transactions took place sometime prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act qua the land involved in the present case and there is no evidence led by the respondent that the land in village Dhaun-Kothi was of inferior quality or away from the National Highway or was not comparable to the land sold vide the aforesaid sale transactions and, therefore, these sale transactions cannot be considered by this Court. The sale transactions proved vide Exts.R-1 to R-10 show that the market value goes down below Rs.3,000/-, which his very less keeping in view the fact that the ACC Factory had already come up in the area and the area in question had developed and, therefore, the average price, per biswa, as per Exts.R-1 to R-10, cannot be said to be relevant. However, keeping in view the sale transactions Exts.P-3, P-5 and P-7 and the price assessed vide these sale transactions, the assessment made by the learned trial Court that the value comes at a uniform rate of Rs.10,000/- per biswa cannot be said to be excessive calling for an interference by this Court and as such those findings are liable to be affirmed. Moreover, the Land Acquisition Collector while making assessment had also considered the land price in villages Baloh, Panjgain and Dhaun-Kothi together, which land was also acquired as per the same notification issued under Section 4 of the Act and, therefore, the assessment made by the learned trial Court on the basis of sale transactions of the land situated in these villages can be said to be reasonable. - 6 - 10. Coming to the market value of the acquired houses, the same was assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector at Rs.5,17,917/-. The Land Acquisition Collector in his award had mentioned that the petitioner did not cooperate and refused for the assessment of his house and as such the assessment of his house was made on the basis of visual inspection to consolidate his compensation amount. The assessment made on the basis of visual inspection cannot be said to be proper until and unless the number of rooms in each house or their measurements were mentioned while making the assessment. Therefore, by visual inspection, the assessment was made by the Land Acquisition Collector without giving the details of the structure at the spot, which approach cannot be said to be correct. However, a perusal of the statement of PW-1 Hariman, petitioner, shows that there were six houses which were single storeyed. Out of the six houses, two were cow sheds, both having three rooms i.e. one cow shed had one room and the other had two rooms. Out of the remaining 4 houses, one had two rooms and a hall. The size of the rooms was 12’ x 15’ each and size of the hall was 12’ x 20’. It was further stated that the second house was having six rooms of 12’ x 10’ size each. The third house was having only one room and one kitchen. The fourth house was having only one room which was being used as W.C. Out of the two cow sheds, one was of pucca structure having slab and the other was of thatched roof. Out of the four houses, one - 7 - room kitchen was slate roof while the remaining three were of pucca structure and they had slabs. 11. The statement of this witness was not proved to be incorrect in his cross examination nor any evidence was led to show that this description given by the petitioner as PW-1 of the houses was incorrect. Accordingly, the assessment of the houses made by the Land Acquisition Collector by visual inspection only at Rs.5,17,917/- cannot be said to have been made correctly. A citizen of the country cannot be made to suffer and he cannot be paid less amount for six houses standing at the spot keeping in view the cost of construction as at present. The learned District Judge had enhanced the said amount by observing that there were as many as five houses standing on the land and even as per the list of houses acquired, four houses were of pucca structure and, therefore, had given some reasoning for increasing the amount of compensation payable for the houses which was enhanced to Rs.10.00 lacs, which cannot be said to be excessive by any stretch of imagination calling for an interference by this Court. 12. No submissions were made in regard to the valuation made under any other head and it calls for no interference by this Court. 13. No specific arguments were raised as to how the compensation awarded by the learned trial Court was inadequate. I have already made a reference to the sale deeds relied upon by the learned trial Court and have held - 8 - that the compensation awarded was reasonable. Therefore, no case is made out for allowing the cross objections or for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 14. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant as well as in the cross objections filed by respondent No.1, which are dismissed accordingly. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. June 4, 2010. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.