IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. RFA No. 346 of 2003 Date of Decision : October 20, 2008 Attar Singh …Appellant. Versus: State of H. P. & Others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant : Mr. G. D. Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B. C. Verma, Advocate For the respondents. Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A. G. with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A. G. SANJAY KAROL, JUDGE (Oral). The claimant has filed the present appeal assailing the impugned Award dated 13.10.2003 passed by the District Judge, Shimla, Camp at Rohru, H.P., in Land Reference No. 20- R/4 of 2003/2000 titled as Attar Singh vs. State of H.P. & Others, partly allowing the Claim Reference Petition filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). For the public purpose, namely, construction of Rohru-Barara road, claimant’s land measuring 0-9-89 hectares on khasra No.914 situate in village Barara, Tehsil Rohru, District 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Shimla, H. P. was acquired with issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act, which was published on 20.7.1996. The Collector, in terms of the Award dated 29.7.1997 determined the market value of the land to be Rs.22,528.80 paisa per bigha. By way of supplementary Award, the Collector also awarded Rs.9,998/- as compensation with respect to the fruit bearing trees. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed Land Reference Petition claiming enhancement of compensation both for the land as also the trees. Appreciating the material on record, the Court below came to the conclusion that the claimant had failed to show that the market value of the acquired land was on the lower side but, however, with regard to the compensation towards fruit bearing trees, relying upon the decision of this Court in Union of India & Others vs. Khazana Ram & Others {1998 (1) SLC 479}, the compensation was enhanced by 5 times and thus a total sum of Rs.49,990/- was awarded instead of Rs.9,998/-. The claimant has filed the present appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation. In order to prove their case, the claimant examined himself as PW-1, Shri Jawahar Kaith (PW-2), Shri Piplu Ram (PW-3) and Shri Maan Singh (PW-4) and in rebuttal, the respondents examined Shri Balak Ram (RW-1). PW-1 and PW-3 have proved on record Sale Deeds Ext.PW-1/C and Ext.PW-1/D. Both the exemplar Sale Deeds 3 pertain to Chak Gangtoli, whereas the acquired land is situated in Chak Barara. From the exemplar Sale Deeds, it is evident that the market value of the land is much higher than what has been awarded by the Collector, but, however, it is a matter of record that no evidence has been led by the claimant to show that the land covered by the exemplar Sale Deeds and also the acquired land are same and similar with regard to use, extent, potentiality and nature. Further, the exemplar Sale Deeds pertain to the sale of an orchard. The sale obviously is along with the fruit bearing trees standing on the land. In the present case, separate compensation has been awarded by the Collector to the claimant with regard to the fruit bearing trees. Mr. Verma has referred to and relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Madeshetti Bala Ramul vs. Land Acquisition Collector {2007 (9) SCC 650} and Gafar & others vs. Moradabad Development Authority & another {2007 (7) SCC 614} to contend that exemplar Sale Deeds of adjoining village can be considered for determining the market value of the acquired land. This preposition is not in dispute. In fact the Apex Court itself has held that the compensation has to be assessed on the basis of evidence on record. In the present case, except for proving exemplar Sale Deeds, as has been noticed hereinabove, there is nothing on record to show that the land in question was similar to that of the land covered by the exemplar Sale Deeds. Burden to prove 4 the claim is on the claimant and, in my view, the same has not been discharged. The Court has considered the material in its entirety while arriving at its conclusion that exemplar Sale Deeds pertain to land, which is situated at a distance of 4 kms. from the acquired land. Having perused the record, I am of the considered view that no fault could be found with the findings returned by the Court below on this count. PW-2 as also PW-4 have deposed that 46 trees on the acquired land were uprooted, which is evident from the M.B. Ext.PW-4/A and Receipt Ext.PW-1/B. PW-2 has further proved the price index Ext.PW-2/A, from which it is evident that the increase in price between the year 1996 to the year 1997 is 1068%. RW-1 has in fact supported the case of the claimant and proved the evaluation report Ext.RW-1/B, from which it is clear that while assessing the compensation, Harbans Singh formula was adopted on the price index prevailing in the year 1996. The Court below has enhanced the compensation by 5 times. Khajana Ram (supra) was dealing with the acquisition proceedings which commenced in the year 1989 and this Court enhanced the amount by 5 times. In the present case, the acquisition proceedings commenced with the issuance of Notification dated 20.7.1996. Therefore, keeping in view the 5 material on record and the increase in price index, ends of justice would be met if the amount is enhanced by 10 times. Thus, the claimant shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.9,998/- multiplied by 10 = R.99,980/-. On the enhanced amount, claimant shall also be entitled to solatium, interest and other statutory benefits in accordance with law. Compensation on a sum of Rs.9,998/- as determined by the Collector shall, however, be deducted from the said amount. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned Award is modified as observed hereinabove. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. October 20, 2008. (rana)