IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: RFA.No.273/2003. Date of Decision:8th September, 2008. L.A.C. and another. …Appellant. Versus: Amar Singh and another. …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr.Vivek Thakur, Addl. Advocate General, with Mr.Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General. For Respondents. Mr.G.R.Palsra, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J (Oral). The present appeal arises out of the award dated 3rd December, 2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Mandi, H. P. in Reference Case No.3 of 1996 titled as Amar Singh and another Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and another, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Collector for the land acquired by the State. For the public purpose, namely, construction of Behna-Tikkar road, the land was acquired vide Notification dated 17th January, 1991 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), lastly published in the Daily News Paper, ‘Jansata’ on 23rd February, 1992. The Collector in terms of award No.70 of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 1993 dated 31st March, 1993 awarded different rates for different classifications of land as under: 1.Barani Abal 0-5-15 Bigha @ Rs.11200/- per bigha Rs.3220-00 2.Barani Doam 1-18-7 Bigha @ Rs. 7467/- per bigha Rs.14317-97 3.Banjar Kadim 0-2-15 Bigha @Rs.1867/- per bigha Rs. 256-71 The total land acquired in terms of the said notification was 2-6-17 bigha, for which compensation of Rs.63,705/- was awarded by the Collector. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed a petition under Section 18 of the ‘Act’ seeking enhancement of the compensation. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether market value of the land acquired has been assessed very low, if so, what is the exact value of the land in dispute at the time of acquisition?. ..OPP. 2. Whether the respondent has not properly assessed the market value of the fruit bearing trees as non fruit bearing trees as alleged, if so what is the correct value?. …OPP. 3. Relief. In order to support its case, claimant-Sh.Amar Singh examined himself as PW-1 and produced on record sale deed (Ext.PW-2/A) including sale deeds mark ‘A.B.C.D’. Appreciating the material (oral and documentary) on record, the court below enhanced the market value of the acquired land and awarded as under: 1.Barani Awal. Rs.40,000/- per bigha. 3 2.Barani Doem Rs.30,000/- per bigha. 3. Barani Kadim Rs.20,000/- per bigha. The State has filed the present appeal assailing the impugned award on the ground that the compensation is much on the higher side. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. From the record, it is evident that the acquired land in village Badyal-Balh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, is situated on the National Highway. The Collector’s award is silent with regard to the basis on which the market value of the acquired land was determined. Sh.Amar Singh (PW-1) deposed that the entire acquired land was put to agriculture use and was irrigated. According to him the market value of the acquired land was approximately Rs.1,00,000/- per bigha and the land of the exemplar sale deed mark ‘A’ is similar to that of the acquired land which was also having fully grown up fruit bearing trees. Importantly, there is no effective cross-objection on the point of the market value. Sh.Rakesh Kumar (PW-2) deposed that in terms of sale deed (Ext.PW-2/A), he purchased 10 biswas of land for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Sale deed (Ext.PW-2/A) pertains to the adjoining village of the acquired land. From the deposition of sole respondent Sh.N.K.Malhotra (RW-1), the market value of the acquired land cannot be ascertained. 4 The sale deed mark-‘A’ pertains to the village of the acquired land whereby 10 biswas of land was sold for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Sale deed dated 18th January, 1991 is proximate to the date of the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, in my view, the court below has correctly taken the same to be the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land. Necessary deductions have been taken into account. Relying upon the same, the Collector has determined different market value for different categories of land. Since the entire acquired land was to be utilized for the construction of the road, the rates should have been applied uniformly to all the categories of land. But, however, the claimants have not filed any appeal or cross objection nor they have argued for enhancement during the course of the hearing, therefore, I am not going into this question at all. In my view, the court below has correctly appreciated the material while arriving at its conclusion. I find no irregularity or perversity in the same. The claimants shall be entitled to all the statutory benefits as awarded by the Court below. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. September 8, 2008(R) 5