IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RFA No.203 of 2002. Date of decision : 24.11.2008. Sh.Roop Daman Singh & Others …Appellants. Versus State of H.P. & Another …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants: Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr.B.C. Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J. This is the claimants’ appeal against the judgment of the learned Reference Court declining to grant the enhancement for the acquired land as claimed by the appellants herein. On the facts pleaded, the learned Reference Court granted an enhancement of Rs.1500/- per Biswa alongwith all statutory benefits. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment holding that the learned Court did not consider the fact that the acquired land is situated in village Khajurna which is well connected and has access to all tourist amenities. The Land Acquisition Collector had awarded compensation on the basis of sale transaction at Village Ambwala and Sainwala. The learned Reference Court had relied upon Ex.PW-1/A for village Khajuran 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? 2 acquired by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and fixed market rate at Rs.1500/- per Biswa. The appellants have claimed compensation to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- by claiming fair compensation of the acquired land at Rs.7500/- per Biswa. When this case was taken up for arguments, an application for additional evidence filed by the claimants was considered and allowed and the judgment of the learned Reference Court in LAC Petition No.8-LAC/4 of 2002 sought to be produced by way of additional evidence was allowed and marked as Ex.A-1. This judgment also related to village Khajuran. In this case the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the `Act’) was issued on 5.7.1996 while in the appeal under consideration the Notification was issued on 7.1.1995. While considering the totality of the evidence as brought on the record of the case, the learned reference Court, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.1,12,500/- per Bigha or Rs.5625/- per Biswa. No evidence contrary to this has been placed on the record of the case by the State though opportunity was granted. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that this judgment cannot be taken as the foundation for calculating true and just compensation. Rather the Notification in this case having been issued at a later point of time, it was for the appellants to have established their case through other evidence. I cannot accept this submission in its totality. True that in cases of post Section 4 Notification, there is always a possibility that all the sale transactions may be inflated. However, in the present case on a reading of the award Ex.A-1 which relates to the same village, I do not find that there is anything to indicate that subsequent to the issuance of the prior Notification, subject of this appeal, land prices have been artificially inflated. The subsequent award was taken on record as Ex.A-1 in which the Court holds that village Khajuran is adjacent to the National Highway and near Nahan town and is located near the bank of Markanda River. It is having great potential value from 3 tourism and commercial point of view. There are hotels, restaurants etc. and other places of tourists interest near this land and a road passes from this village to the Saketi Fossil Park which is a place of great Tourists Interest. The Court, after consideration of the entire evidence, has awarded Rs. 1,12,500/- per Bigha i.e. Rs.5,625/- per Biswa as the true and fair compensation. Learned counsel places reliance on the decision of this Court in Chamera Hydro Electric Project vs. Ganga Ram and Others, 2007(3) Shim.L.C. 243, relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and Another, (1988) 3 SCC 751, with the caveat that the post Notification sale transactions can be taken in to account but they should be genuine and relevant and artificial inflation should be eliminated. In the present case, I find that there is nothing on the record to show that in Ex.A-1, the sale transactions considered have in any manner been influenced by the Notification under Section 4 of the Act, subject matter of this appeal, though prior in point of time in the present appeal. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this appeal is allowed. The claim of the appellants is restricted to Rs.5,625/- per Biswa. From this amount, the amount already awarded shall be deducted and balance paid to the appellants herein. The appellants will be entitled to all the statutory benefits including interest etc. in the nature of compulsory acquisition charges and interest etc. as admissible under the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. November 24, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.