IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RFA No. 66 of 1999 Date of Decision : June 4 , 2009 Collector Land Acquisition, HPPWD, Kullu and another. Appellants Versus Machu @ Maghu and others. Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellants : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. Advocate General for the appellants. For the respondents : Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate, for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The appellants have assailed the impugned award dated 22.7.1997 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Kullu, H.P. in Land Reference Petition No. 81 of 1994, titled as Machu alias Maghu and others versus Collector Land Acquisition HPPWD, Kullu, H.P. and another and other connected matters which were decided in terms of the impugned award. For the public purpose namely construction of “Ramshilla Bijli Mahadev road”, the State initiated acquisition proceedings by issuing notification dated 15.9.1987, under Section 4 of the Land 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which was published in the H.P. Rajpatra on 10.10.1987. The Collector Land Acquisition passed its Award No. 5, dated 10.10.1989 assessing the compensation payable to some of the land owners including the claimants herein. Different awards were passed by the Collector awarding compensation with respect to the large chunk of land situated in different revenue estates, which was sought to be acquired for the construction of the aforesaid road. The land owners, including the present claimants filed land reference petitions under Section 18 of the Act, before the District Judge seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Collector, from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 4 lacs per bigha. In one such land reference petition, the District Judge in terms of award dated 1.12.1994 assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per bigha and awarded compensation accordingly. The subject matter of the land covered by the said award pertains to the very same acquisition proceedings and is also situated just adjacent to the land acquired by the instant acquisition proceedings. Based on the same, in the impugned award the Court below enhanced the compensation by taking the market value of the acquired land to be @ Rs. 50,000/- per bigha. While passing the impugned award the Court below has observed as under: ”11. I have given my best consideration to the arguments of both the parties. The petitioners had produced sale instances 3 of 1983 to 1987 indicating the sale at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per biswas in Phati Kharahla. Too much importance could not be attached to the sale instances quoted by the petitioners as also the oral and documentary evidence placed on record for the simple reason that increase, if any, in the market value on account of development carried out by the State had to be ignored. The area where the land under acquisition was situated had been spurt in developmental activity after the State had decided to go in for Ramshila-Bijli-Mahadev highway. In the absence of the highway the market value of holding of Phati Kharahal was not much and had been so conceded before me. Hence, the sale instances quoted by the petitioners were liable to be ignored. The petitioners had produced Ext.P-5, copy of award dated 1.12.1994 passed by the then learned Additional District Judge, Kullu. The perusal of this award revealed that for construction of Ramshila-Bijli Mahadev highway, the State had acquired Khasra No. 6539 of Phati Kharahal in the first instance. The proprietors had applied for enhancement of compensation for acquisition of Kh. No. 6539. Vide award dated 10.10.1990, the learned District Judge had assessed compensation for Khasra No. 6539 at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per bigha. Again Kh. No. 6509 had been acquired for the same purpose by the State and vide award dated 1.12.1994 the then learned Additional District Judge had assessed compensation for Kh. No. 6509 at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per bighas. Kh. No. 6509 had been notified for acquisition under Section 4 of the Act vide notification dated 18.4.1987. In the case in hand, the land under acquisition had been notified for acquisition on 15.9.1987. The perusal of the field maps of Kh. No. 6509 and 6539 and the land under acquisition revealed that the land under acquisition was comparable in all respects with land 4 described in Khasra Nos. 6509 and 6539. The perusal of the field map Ext.P-4 revealed that Kh. Nos. 6822 and 6823 were situated close to Kh. No. 6853 involved in the present land references. The then learned Additional District Judge, vide award dated 1.2.1994, had assessed compensation for Kh. Nos. 6822 and 6823 at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per bighas. Khasra Nos. 6822 and 6823 had been notified for acquisition on 18.4.1987. The land under acquisition in all six cases had been notified for acquisition on 15.9.1987. Therefore, I find that the petitioners were liable to be granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per bigha as had been held earlier. The market value of khasra Nos. 6822 and 6823 so assessed by this Court vide award dated 1.12.1994 was a relevant piece of evidence and applicable to the cases in hand. Apart from this, it was necessary to keep uniformity in the market value of the adjacent land to as to avoid discrimination to the estate holder.” The State has filed the appeal assailing the same. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The fact that the award dated 1.12.1994 passed by the District Judge has attained finality is not in dispute. The record shows that both the acquired land and the land covered under the exemplar award are not only situated adjacent to each other but are also in the very same revenue village. The District Judge held the lands comparable in every respect. The reasoning adopted by the Court below in my view is correct. The aforesaid award was rightly made basis for determining 5 compensation for the acquired land. This was done to ensure uniformity in the market rate of the adjacent land and avoid discrimination to the estate holders. The Court below has considered the matter in its entirety. I find no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned award. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. June 4 , 2009 (PK)