IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No. 267 of 2007 Alongwith Cross Objection No. 106 of 2008 Date of Decision: 20th May, 2010 State of Himachal Pradesh and others Appellants Versus Ramesh Kumar and others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellants: Mr. R.M.Bisht, Dy. Advocate General For the respondents: Mr.B.S.Kanwar and Mr. Harsh Joshi, Advocates. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) 1. Appellants have filed Regular First Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act assailing the impugned award dated 7.4.2007 passed by Additional District Judge, Shimla, in Land Reference Petition No. 2-S/4 of 2004, titled as Ramesh Kumar and another vs. State of H.P. and others. 2. For the public purpose, namely, construction of Sewerage Treatment Plant in Shimla Town in Mauza Gadaog, Tehsil and District Shimla, notification under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published in Official Gazette on 23.7.2001. The Collector, Land Acquisition, passed his Award No.2 of 2003 on 14.1.2003. In terms of the said Award 4 Bighas and 13 Biswas of land was acquired. The Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 compensation on the basis of market value was determined by the Collector, on the following rates:- “1. Katul Rs.3,94,279.86 per Bigha 2. Bangar Awal Rs.3,43,023.48 per Bigha 3. Bangar Doyam Rs.2,20,796.00 per Bigha 4. Bangar Soyam Rs. 98,569.96 per Bigha 5. Banjar Kadeem Rs. 35,485.18 per Bigha 6. Ghasni Rs. 11,828.40 per Bigha” 3. The land owners filed two Land Reference Petitions under Section 18 of the Act. Both these petitions were decided in terms of the impugned award. Only the claimants of Land Reference No. 2-S/4 of 2004 have assailed the same by filing the present appeal. In terms of the impugned award Reference Court has awarded compensation by determining the market value of the acquired land to be Rs.3,94,279.86 per Bigha, regardless of the category of the land acquired. 4. The claimants have also filed Cross-Objections seeking enhancement of the amount. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Admittedly no instances of sale transactions have been placed on record by either side. This is for the reason that no sale of land took place in the area prior to the initiation of the acquisition proceedings or immediately thereafter. This fact is also evident from the award (Ext.P-1) passed by Collector. Ext. P-3 is the letter written by the Land Acquisition Collector to the Sub Divisional officer (Civil) recommending that the market value for the acquired land be determined on the basis of annual average value maintained by the revenue department to adjoining village Majhaith. The instant acquired land is situated in Mauza Gadaog. Village Andheri is immediately above this village. In Village Andheri there is Summer-Hill Railway Station, which falls 3 within the municipal limits of Shimla town. However, Village Gadaog does not fall within the municipal limits of Shimla town. The Collector has determined the market value by taking into account the annual average value of village Dhanda, but, however, in between Village Gadaog and Village Dhanda undoubtedly there is a village Majethi, where the annual average market value undoubtedly is higher than Village Dhanda. But, however, this fact alone would not mean that land in Village Gadaog would command price higher than land in Village Dhanda or equivalent to land in Village Majethi. From the statements of S/Shri Karam Chand (PW-1), Chaman Lal (PW-2), Hardyal Jistu (PW-3), Ramesh Kumar (PW-4) and Roshan Lal (PW-5) it is evident that the land is situated in Nallah where there is no habitation. It is also at a distance of at least 500 mts. away from National Highway. 7. No doubt, there is evidence to show that in Village Andheri there is an Army Colony, Railway Station, H.P. University and Central Government Employees Colony, but, however, that fact also would not mean that instant acquired land would have the same potential with respect to similarity, use, size and nature. There is also no doubt that Collector, Land Acquisition, has given adequate opportunity of hearing to the claimants. Now in the instant case, there is no evidence at all to show that the acquired land is similar and comparable with the land situated in Village Majethi, Andheri or for that matter even Dhanda. There is no other evidence on record. Thus it cannot be said that claimants were entitled to compensation at rates higher than what was determined by the Court below. 8. While passing the impugned award in favour of the claimants, the Court below has determined the market value by taking into account the highest price determined for the best category of land by the Collector, Land 4 Acquisition and then uniformly applying the same to the entire land. As per the Collector’s award, claimants’ land is of the following category. Bangar Kadeem 1-16 Bighas Ghasni 0-18 Bighas 9. Based on document Ext.P-3, the Court below has taken the claimants’ land, to the extent of 1.10 Bighas, to be Katul. I find no error in the same as in terms of Ext.P-3 the Collector himself had taken the land to be so. 10. This Court in State of H.P. and others vs. Keshav Ram and others, RFA No. 328 of 2005, decided on 12.12.2008 has held that where the whole of the acquired land is to be utilized no deduction towards development charges is required to be made. The Court was also dealing with a case also the land had been acquired for the purpose of construction of sewerage treatment plant at village Rajhana. The rates awarded for the highest category of land was uniformly applied for all the categories of land and compensation was awarded accordingly. 11. In L.A.C. and another vs. Shri Gorkhia, RFA No. 77 of 2004 and connected matters, decided on 1.9.2008, the land was acquired for the purposes of construction of sewerage treatment plant and this Court by accepting the highest rate awarded by the Collector uniformly applied the same to the entire acquired land regardless of category and classification. 12. Further in Nelson Fernades vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer [2007(9) SCC 447] while dealing with the case where the land was acquired for laying a Railway line, the Court held that no deduction by way of development charges was permissible as there was no question of any development thereof. Therefore, in my view, the Court has rightly arrived at 5 its conclusion that the market value so determined has to be uniformly applied to the entire acquired land. 13. This Court further in Lalit Kumar vs. State of H.P. [1998(1) SLC 41], has also held the same. 14. This position has also been accepted by the Apex Court in Lal Chand vs. Union of India and another, AIR 2010 SC 170, where also land was acquired for construction of Sewerage Treatment Plant and compensation was awarded on the basis of rates which were uniformly applied regardless of their category and classification. 15. Hence, in my considered view, it cannot be said that the learned District Judge erred in awarding compensation to the claimants rates determined for the highest category of land, regardless of category and classification, were required to be uniformly applied. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, I see no illegality, perversity, irregularity in the impugned award. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Cross-objections are also dismissed. 20th May, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.