HIGH COURT OF UTTARANKHAND AT NAINITAL F. A. NO. 99 of 2005 1. State of Uttarakhand through Collector, New Tehri. 2. Tehri Hydro Development Corporation through its Chief Managing Director, Vijay Tower, 15th floor, 16, Rajendra Place, New Delhi. …..Defendants /Appellants Versus Dinesh Chandra Jain, S/o Sri Padam Sen Jain, Ward No. 5, Tehri City, Tehri Garhwal. …..Respondent/ Claimant. Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri R.C. Arya, learned Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand on behalf of appellants and Sri A.M. Saklani, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This is an appeal preferred by the State and THDC under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2001 passed by District Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 3 of 1989 (Dinesh Chand Jain Vs. State and another) whereby the compensation has been enhanced by Rs. 54,710/-. 3. Briefly stated, land of the claimant along with pucca construction measuring about 700 sq. ft. situated in Khata No. 51 of 2 Ward No. 5 plot no. 241 was acquired under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of construction of Tehri Dam as entire Tehri town was expected to submerge into water. In this connection, a notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 10.03.1984. 4. Since the house of the claimant was also acquired, he was awarded compensation of Rs. 3885/- for land measuring 700 sq. ft. @ Rs. 5.55 per sq. ft. solatium @ 30% amounting to Rs. 1165/- and 12% additional compensation amounting to Rs. 1407/- by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 16.03.1987. Similarly, he was awarded compensation of Rs. 14171/- for constructed house, solatium @ 30% amounting to Rs. 4251/- and 12% additional compensation amounting to Rs. 5134/- by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. 5. Aggrieved by the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, a reference was preferred under section 18 of the land Acquisition Act before the District Judge, Tehri Garhwal being Land Acquisition Reference No. 3 of 1989. 6. On the pleadings of the parties the District Judge has framed following issues:- a. Whether compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Tehri is inadequate? If so, what is the reasonable and proper compensation of the disputed property? b. Relief? 3 7. The District Judge has enhanced the compensation. Aggrieved by the said order dated 31.10.2001, present appeal has been filed by the appellant. 8. A perusal of the record shows that the reference Court has observed that as per Form no. 11 filled by State O.P. No. 1 the value of 700 sq. ft. land of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 30/- per sq. ft. comes to Rs. 21,000/-, solatium @ 30% comes to Rs. 6300/-. In this case, notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act is alleged to have been published on 10.03.1984 and the award has been made on 16.03.1987. The petitioner is also entitled to get Rs. 7609/- as interest on the value of land for the intervening period. Thus, petitioner is entitled to get Rs. 34,909/- as compensation for his land. 9. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has assessed the value of the land acquired at Rs. 5.55 per sq. ft. while the learned District Judge has assessed market rate of the land acquired at Rs. 30 per sq. ft. The finding of the reference court regarding issue no. 1 is quoted as under: “In support of his claim the petitioner has examined himself as Dinesh Chand PW 1 and has filed certified copies of a judgement and sale deed dated 01.08.1992 and 15.01.1985 respectively to show that the higher value of the land prevailed and awarded by the Court. He has also filed copy of judgement in L.A.R. No. 4/1989 Adesh Kumar Vs. State and another by which the court awarded compensation for land of Ward No. 5 Khata no. 51 of Tehri town at the rate of Rs. 30/- per sq. ft. 4 The land of the present petitioner also falls in Khata No. 51 of Ward No. 5 of Tehri town. The SLAO has relied upon the exemplar sale deed of lowest value of land while the other sale deeds considered gave the price upto Rs. 31.98 which were rejected by him for no specific reason. The rate of land in the small Tehri town cannot be as low as Rs. 5.50 per sq. ft. I, therefore, adopt the rate of land awarded by this court for the land of Khata no. 51 of Ward No. 5 of Tehri town at the rate of Rs. 30/- per sq. ft.” 10. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in F.A. No. 560 of 2001 (State of U.P. Vs. Lekhi Ram Semalti) in which the value of ward no. 2 of the same town has been assessed at Rs. 30/- per sq. ft. The said land was acquired almost at similar point of time for the same purpose. 11. The Division Bench of this Court has passed judgement in F.A. No. 560 of 2001 (State Vs. Lekhi Ram Semalti) which is on same footing. Paras no. 7, 10 and 11 of the judgement are relevant and same are quoted as under: “7. With regard to the rate of the land, the District Judge found that the amount of Rs. 6/- per sq. ft. was inadequate as the house and the adjoining land was located in the populated area of Tehri town i.e. in ward no. 2. He has observed that ignoring everything, if one is said to assess value of the land in such an area, then in common experience the value of the land 5 of the claimant could never have been so less as Rs. 6/- per sq. ft. He relied upon the copies of the sale deed dated 16.01.1985, 15.01.1985 and 16.01.1989 executed by one Sri Vijaipal Singh, which filed by the claimant. He observed that though the sale deeds were of 1985, the land was soled at the rate of Rs. 30/- per sq. ft. He also observed that subsequently, the inhabitants of ward no. 7 to 10 whose land was 50 meters away from the acquired land, were awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 30/- per sq. ft. According to the District Judge, as it is known to everyone that the Tehri town will submerge in water, therefore, there could not have been any increase in the rate of land since 1983, when the land of the claimant was acquired. Thus, the learned District Judge held that in view of the reported decision Mehta Ravendra Rai Ajit Rai and others vs. State of Gujrat (AIR 1989 SC 2051), the agreement of sale 5 months after notification under section 4 could not be ignored, and the said case law is applicable into the facts of this case. In view of this, he assessed the rate of the land @ Rs. 30/- per sq. ft. 10. The finding of the District Judge that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 2000/- on account of construction of pucca drain for flow of dirty water measuring 1.5 ft. X 1.5 ft. upto 50 ft. does not call for any interference and just and proper. He has also rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- for two septic tanks constructed by the claimant. The District Judge has also rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- 6 to the claimant for expenses in shifting of his family and other belonging to a new place. The finding of the District Judge that the claimant is entitled to Rs. 4000/- as cost of trees and Rs. 5000/- towards electric and water connection fittings also does not call for any interference. 11. In view of the above, the claimant respondent is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 2,51,800/- as compensation. In addition of this amount, he will also be entitled to the following claims” a. 30% solatium with effect from 21.01.1983 till the date of award i.e. 31.01.1985. b. Special compensation @ 12% on the amount of Rs. 2,51,800/- for the aforesaid period. c. Rs. 10,000/- shifting expenses.” After calculating the aforesaid amount, a sum of Rs. 1,79,367/- which has already been received by the claimant respondent will also be deducted.” 12. In the aforesaid circumstances, it appears that all the similarly situated land has been finally assessed at Rs. 30/- per sq. ft. either by the District Judge, Tehri or by this Court. There is nothing on record, which makes the case that the land of the claimant should be assessed at a market value less than said rate i.e. Rs. 30/- per sq. ft. 13. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has assessed the value of house as Rs. 14,171/- whereas the learned District Judge has rightly 7 assessed the value of house as Rs. 24,171/- by adding the value of soak pit, chowk and other small items. I do not find any illegality or ambiguity in the impugned judgment and order dated 31.10.2001 passed by learned District Judge, New Tehri. 14. In view of the above, appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 18.02.2008 SKS