IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RFA No.: 168 of 2003. Reserved on: 22.07.2008. Decided on: 11.09.2008. The Land Acquisition Collector and Others. … … Appellants. Versus Shri Budhi Ram. … … Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellants: Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent: Mr. Virender Bali, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: This regular first appeal is preferred against the judgment/award dated 18.3.2002 passed by the learned District Judge, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr in the Land Reference Case No.96 of 1999. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that the Government of Himachal Pradesh had issued notification dated 17.2.1994 published in the H.P. State Gazette on 19.3.1994 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of land Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - measuring 0-08-11 hectares in Khasra No.18/1 and 0-05-39 hectares, Khasra No.536/1 situated in revenue estate Khadahan, Sub Tehsil Nankhari, District Shimla for construction of Bhutti-Delath road. Notifications under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act were issued on 23.2.1995. The Collector had made the award on 18.2.1997. As per the award dated 18.2.1997, the Collector has determined the compensation for different classes of land of revenue Estate Khadahan as under:- Sr. No. Classification of land. Rate of land per bigha. 1. Kiar Awal Rs. 10,106.95 2. Kiar Doem Rs. 7,219.25 3. Bakhal Awal Rs. 3,529.41 4. Krali Awal Rs. 1,443.85 5. Banjar Kadeem Rs. 500.00 The claimant filed reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of the compensation. The learned District Judge awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per bigha for acquisition of the land of the claimant with separate entitlements. The appellants have challenged the judgment/award dated 18th March, 2002 passed by the learned District Judge, Rampur Bushahr. The learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the award dated 18th March, 2002 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He had primarily contended that the learned District Judge could not compare Khadahan revenue estate with Jahu revenue estate. According to him the market value was to be considered in view of the average market value of the land of revenue estate Bhamnoli. Mr. Bali had supported the award dated 18th March, 2002. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. - 3 - PW-1. Budhi Ram and PW-4, Palas Ram, Patwari had deposed that the land under acquisition falling in revenue estate Khadahan was comparable in all respects with the land of revenue estate Jahu. RW-1 Visheshwar Lal, Patwari, Land Acquisition had compiled the average market price Ex.RW-1/A of revenue estate Khadahan for the period from 17.2.1993 to 17.2.1994. His cross examination reads thus:- “….. The Collector Land Acquisition had paid compensation at the rate of Rs.3,529/- and l41 Paise for one bigha of Bakhal Awal land under acquisition of revenue estate Kharahan and Juni. In 1997 as well, one bigha of Bakhal Awal land could not have been sold by anyone for Rs.3529/- in revenue estates Kharahan and Juni. Even in 1994, the market price was much higher. Jahu is at a distance of about 2 Kms. from Kharahan and Juni. Land of revenue estate Kharahan and revenue estate Juni is comparable with land of revenue estte Jahu.” It is, thus evident from the statements of PW-1 and PW-4 as also RW-1 that the land under acquisition of revenue estate Khadahan is comparable in all respects with the land of nearby revenue estate Jahu. In award dated 1.11.2001, Ex.PXX passed in land reference No.22 of 1999/96, the market value of the land of revenue estate Jahu was assessed at Rs.35,000/- per bigha irrespective of classification of land inclusive of compensation for fruit bearing and non-fruit bearing trees. The learned District Judge on the basis of the evidence ocular as well as documentary has come to just conclusion that the location, shape, size, user, potentiality, fertility and productively of the land under acquisition was comparable with the land of revenue estate Jahu. The learned District Judge has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.35,000/- per bigha to the claimant. The learned District Judge has rightly discarded the average - 4 - market value Ex.RW-1/A which was based on price index of sale of revenue estate Bhamnoli for the period 17.2.1993 to 17.2.1994. There is neither any jurisdictional error nor any procedural irregularity in the judgment/award dated 18th March, 2002 passed by the District Judge. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. September 11, 2008. (Rajiv Sharma) (sck). Judge.