IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No. 316 of 2000 Cross Objections No. 138 of 2001 Judgment reserved on: 23.7.2008 Date of Decision : 08.08.2008 __________________________________________________________ RFA No. 316 of 2000 N.J.P.C. and others ….Appellants. Versus Lajwanti and others. ….Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 __________________________________________________________ For the Appellants: Shri Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent No.1(b) Shri G.D. Verma, Sr. Advocate with to 1(e) : Shri Romesh Verma, Advocate For the Respondent No.2: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General For the Respondent No.3: Shri T.C. Sharma, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. This appeal has been preferred by the Nathpa Jhakri Project Corporation against the award made by the learned Reference Court. The claimants/respondents approached the reference Court in a petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, (hereinafter referred to as Act), for 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 determination of just compensation of the market value of the land acquired. The petitioner herein averred that his land measuring 0-13-14 hactares, situated in village Jhakri, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla alongwith a constructed double storeyed house had been acquired by the department. He was dissatisfied with the award made by Collector and preferred his right under Section 18 of the Act for having fair compensation determined by learned Reference Court in accordance with law. The petitioner examined five witnesses to prove on record various sale deeds Ext.PW1/A, Ext.PW3/A, and Ext.PW3/C. The learned Court on consideration of the sale deeds held that the land under acquisition was not comparable with the land covered by the sale deeds Ext.PW1/A and Ext.PW2/A. On the evidence of the claimants, the Court did not accept the version that the land was similar to the acquired land and that it was situated abutting the National Highway. The Court noticed that this land had been acquired for the Nathpa Jhakari Hydroelectric Project which acquisition was admittedly of a large chunk of land and sale instances of small parcels of land could not be used as comparable sale value. My attention has also been drawn to judgment of this Court relating to the same acquisition. In LAC Vs. Rani Rajendera Kumari and others 2000 (2) SLC page 45, this Court was dealing with the same acquisition proceedings for the same purpose allowed a rate of Rs. 5000/- per biswa after holding that:- “45. It will thus be seen from the evidence led in respect of both the acquisitions that the learned District Judge (Forests), Shimla as well as the learned District Judge, Rampur have correctly arrived at the conclusion that the market value of the acquisition was Rs. 5000/- per biswa at the time of its acquisition. At the cost of repetition, it needs to be mentioned that they have arrived at this rate by imposing their respective deductions made from the average sale price of Rs. 11,000/- per biswa, calculated 3 from the respective sale transactions forming part of evidence before them. 46. Even if the criteria of arriving at the market value, on the basis of average sale price calculated from the evidence led by the parties in land acquisition proceedings in the shape of sale transactions is discarded, then also in the present case, taking into consideration the location of the acquired land vis-à- vis the proximity of the same to the road as brought out from the evidence discussed above, as also taking into consideration its proximity to the parcels of land vis-à-vis the relevant sale deeds proximate to the respective dates of acquisition, the market rate of Rs. 5000/- per biswa appears to be just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances borne out from the record. This is all the more so in as much as, the case set up by the Land Acquisition authorities in proceedings before the Court under Section 18 of the Act as reflected from the cross-examination of the land owners regarding the sale transactions is also to the effect that the market value of the acquired land at the relevant point of time was Rs. 5000/- per biswa. The rate which has been awarded by learned District Judge (Forest) is in consonance with this judgment. I do not see any reason to differ with the judgment of this Court which is for the same parcel of land and for the same purpose. The second objection raised by petitioner herein is that reference Court was clearly wrong in awarding interest from the date prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The Court was wrong in awarding interest from 5.3.1988 which should have been awarded from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Learned counsel submits that learned Court has taken the date as 5.3.1988 whereas it should have been from 18.6.1988. The submissions made by petitioner cannot be disputed. However considering the fact that period for which the extra interest awarded is 4 only about three months and amount of interest for these months would not be much. This is not a fit case to go into this aspect of the matter. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. Cross-Objections: - This petition is preferred by claimants on the ground that learned Reference Court was wrong in not awarding just and fair compensation for the land which was acquired and that the value of land as proved on record by sale instances is much more. The Cross Objectors valued the land at Rs. 15,000/- per biswa instead of Rs. 5000/- and not for the value of the building as per Ext.PW5/A. As I have held that Reference Court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and moreover, the acquisition was for the purpose of setting up a Hydroelectric Plant for which a large chunk of land was acquired. This question has been dealt with while determining the compensation in the case of Rani Rajendera Kumari where these factors have been considered by this Court. I do not find any reason to express any differ view than the one already passed by this Court. These cross objections are accordingly dismissed. August 8,2008 (Dev Darshan Sud), (ms) Judge