IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA No. 269 of 1998 with RFA Nos. 247, 248, 267, 268, 270, 271, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 296, 299 of 1998, RFA Nos. 112 and 136 of 1999 and RFA No. 103 of 2000. Judgement reserved on: 6.5.2009. Date of decision: May 25, 2009. [ For title, please see pages (i) to (iii) ] Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Appellants : Mr.A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. S.M.Goel, Advocate for respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 in RFA No. 284 of 1998 and vice Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, counsel for the respondents in all cases except RFA No. 136 of 1999. None for the respondents in RFA No. 136 of 1999. Kuldip Singh, Judge. This judgement shall dispose of RFA Nos. 269 of 1998 with RFA Nos. 247, 248, 267, 268, 270, 271, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 296, 299 of 1998, RFA Nos. 112 and 136 of 1999 and RFA No., 103 of 2000, arising out of Reference Petitions Nos. 53, 61, 67, 66, 62, 69, 63, 74, 57, 65, 95, 96, 59, 60, 54, 76 and 55 of 1995, respectively, decided by a common award dated 31.10.1997 by Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes the learned District Judge, Kullu awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.1,58,121/- per bigha, irrespective of the classification of the land alongwith benefit of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) on the enhanced amount of compensation, 9% interest for one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum was also allowed. 2. The facts in brief are that land measuring 16-2-12 bighas in Phati Shilihar, Tehsil and District Kullu was acquired for public purpose for construction of National Highway 21, notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the gazette on 6.5.1989. The description of acquired land is as follows:- Sr. No. Case No. Description of land. 1. RFA No. 269 of 1998 (Ref.Pet.No.53/95) Khasra No. 4095/1 measuring 1-1-9 Bigha 2. RFA No. 247 of 1998 (Ref.Pet.No.61/95) Khasra No. 4127, measuring 0-5-0 Bigha. 3. RFA No. 248 of 1998 (Ref.Pet.No.67/95) Khasra No. 4056/1, measuring 0-1-2 Bigha and khasra No.4058 measuring 0-5-0 Bigha. 4. RFA No. 267 of 1998 (Ref.Pet.No.66/95) Khasra No. 4127/1 measuring 0- 5-0 Bigha, Khasra No. 4133/2/1 measuring 0-1-1 Bigha. 5. RFA No. 268 of 1998 (Ref.Pet.No.62/95) Khasra No. 4018 measuring 0-10-0 Bigha. 6. RFA No. 270 of 1998 (Ref.Pet.No.69/95) Khasra No. 4135/2/1 measuring 0-3-1 Bigha, Khasra No. 4135/3/1 measuring 0-17-13 Bigha. 7. RFA No. 271 of 1998 (Ref.Pet.No.63/95) Khasra No. 4069/1 measuring 0- 2-18 Bigha, Khasra No. 4138/2 measuring 0-5-0, Khasra No. 4138/3/1 measuring 0-4-1 Bigha 8. RFA No. 284 of 1998 (Ref.Pet.No.74/95) Khasra No. 4061/1, 4063/1, 4062/1 measuring 0-17-0 Bigha. 9. RFA No. 285 of 1998 (Ref.Pet.No.57/95) Khasra No. 4133/2/1 measuring 0-1-8 Bigha and khasra No. 4133/3/1 measuring 0-4-5 Bigha 10. RFA No.286 of 1998 (Ref.Pet.No.65/95) Khasra No.4057 measuring 0-5-0 Bigha. 11. RFA No. 287 of 1998 (Ref.Pet.No.95/95) Khasra No. 6344/4141 measuring 0-4-0 Bigha, khasra No.4140/2 measuring 0-2-2 Bigha and khasra No. 4152/1 measuring 0- 5-10 Bigha. 12. RFA No. 288 of 1998 (Ref.Pet.No.96/95) Khasra No. 4096/1 measuring 0- 10-9 Bigha, khasra No.6344/4141 measuring 0-4-0 Bigha and khasra No.4140/2 measuring 0-2- 2 Bigha. 13. RFA No. 296 of 1998 (Ref.Pet.No.59/95) Khasra No. 6465/3932/1 measuring 1-4-11 Bigha 14. RFA No. 299 of 1998 (Ref.Pet.No.60/95) Khasra No. 4147/1 measuring 0- 7-8 Bigha. 15. RFA No. 112 of 1999 (Ref.Pet.No.54/95) Khasra No. 4081/1 measuring 0- 6-12 bigha and khasra No.4082/2 measuring 0-8-0 Bigha. 16. RFA No. 136 of 1999 (Ref.Pet.No.76/95) Khasra No. 6467/3933/1 measuring 0-6-0 Bigha, khasra No. 7184/4127 measuring 0-4-0 Bigha and khasra No. 6465/3932/1 measuring 1-4-11 Bigha. 17. RFA No. 103 of 20001 (Ref.Pet.No.55/95) Khasra No. 4128 measuring 0-6- 0 Bigha 3. The Collector passed award No. 12 on 22.9.1991 and awarded following rates as per classification of the land:- Sr. No. Kind of land Rate per Bigha 1. Ropa Abbal Rs.32686.55 2. Ropa Dom Rs.23132.02 3. Bathal Abbal Rs.18606.19 4. Bagicha Bathal Rs.18606.19 5. Bathal Dom Rs.14036.80 6. Bathal Som Rs. 9554.53 7. Bathal Charam Rs. 4525.83 8. Banjar Kadim Rs. 4525.83 The Collector had also awarded 30% solatium, 12% additional compensation under Section 23-A. 4. The owners were not satisfied with the rate awarded by the Collector of the acquired land, they filed reference petitions under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation. The various reference petitions were consolidated vide order dated 19.7.1996 of District Judge passed in reference petition No. 52 of 1995. After the consolidation of the petitions, the District Judge had framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Collector Land Acquisition, Kullu for the acquired land is inadequate, if so, what was the market value of the acquired land at the relevant time? OPP. 2. Whether there were fruit and non-fruit trees on the acquired land, if so, whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation in respect of the same and to what amount? OPP. 3. Whether the petitioners have dangas on the acquired land, if so, what was its value? OPP. 4. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the enhancement of compensation qua the acquired land as alleged? OPP. 5. Relief. All the aforesaid petitions were decided by common award dated 31.10.1997 and District Judge has allowed enhancement of compensation as noticed above. The Collector had filed appeal against the award dated 31.10.1997 passed in Reference Petition No. 52 of 1995, which was barred by time, therefore, CMP(M) No. 463 of 1998 was filed for condonation of delay in filing the said appeal. The application for condonation of delay was dismissed by a Division Bench of this court on 23.9.1998, with the observation that the appeal was not decided on merits, therefore, order shall not be a binding precedent in other appeals arising out of the impugned award. 5. Heard and perused the record. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that District Judge has erred in allowing enhancement of compensation. The sale-deeds Ex. DA, Ex. DB, Ex. DC and Ex. DD have not been considered for assessing the market value of the acquired land. The award Ex. P-21 dated 28.5.1993, is of different village. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has supported the impugned award and has submitted that award Ex. P-21 was rightly relied by the learned District Judge in assessing the market value of the acquired land, inasmuch as, the land involved in award Ex. P 21 was acquired for widening of National Highway-21 in the same area. The vendors or the vendees of the sale deeds Ex.DB, Ex. DC and Ex. DD were not examined nor there is any evidence to show that the lands sold vide sale deeds Ex. DB, Ex. DC and Ex. DD were similar to the acquired land. The land covered by sale-deed Ex. DA was 7 Kilometers away from the acquired land, which was stony and sloppy, therefore, the land covered by sale-deed Ex. DA was rightly not relied by the learned District Judge for assessing the market value of the acquired land. 6. The learned Additional Advocate General has not relied any sale transaction in support of his submissions except sale deeds Ex. DA, Ex. DB, Ex. DC and Ex. DD. RW 1 Amar Singh has stated that he had sold 10 biswas land vide Ex. DA for Rs.11,000/- in the year 1988. In cross-examination, he has stated that the land which he had sold is situated 7 kilometers from the acquired land. The land which he had sold is uncultivable, stony and sloppy, which is not fit for agriculture. The houses cannot be constructed on that land. V.K. Chaudhary, Dy. D.A. had tendered in evidence sale deeds Ex. DB, Ex. DC, Ex. DD, jamabandies Ex. DF, Ex. DG, Ex. DH and Ex. DK. 7. The sale deed Ex. DA is of land which is situated at 7 Kilometers from the acquired land. RW 1 Amar Singh has stated that the land covered by sale deed Ex. DA is stony, sloppy and not fit for agriculture and construction of houses, hence sale deed Ex. DA cannot be relied for determining the market value of the acquired land. The sale deeds Ex. DB, Ex. DC and Ex. DD have been placed on record, but vendors and vendees of these sale deeds have not been examined. No evidence has been led to establish that lands covered by sale deeds Ex. DB, Ex. DC and Ex. DD are comparable to the acquired land. Therefore, sale deeds Ex. DB, Ex. DC and Ex. DD are of no help for assessing the market value of the acquired land. 8. The District Judge has noticed another award Ex.P-39 dated 27.2.1995 of the Collector. The land involved in award Ex.P-39 was also acquired for widening of National Highway No.21 in Phati Shilihar. The notification under Section 4 of the Act for acquiring land covered by award Ex.P-39 was issued on 29.6.1993 and the Collector had awarded rate of land involved in award dated 27.2.1995 at Rs.13,500/- per biswa or Rs.2,70,000/- per bigha. The notification under Section 4 of acquired land was published in the gazette on 6.5.1989, therefore, rate given in award Ex. P-39 cannot be applied for the acquired land. 9. The claimants have, however, brought on record Ex.P-21 award dated 28.5.1993 passed by Additional District Judge, Kullu in Reference Petition No. 26 of 1991. In the award dated 28.5.1993 seven cases were decided, out of which six cases had arisen out of award No. 7 dated 6.2.1989 of the Collector and one case had arisen out of award No. 6 dated 6.2.1989 of the Collector. In award No. 6 of the Collector, the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 9.4.1988, whereas in award No. 7 of Collector, the notification under Section 4 was issued on 18.6.1988. The lands covered in award No. 6 and award No. 7 were acquired for the same purpose i.e. widening of National Highway No. 21 in Phati Khokhan, Tehsil and District Kullu. The learned Additional District Judge vide award dated 28.5.1993 Ex. P-21 has assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.1,43,747/- per bigha at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The land in the present case was acquired for widening of National Highway No. 21 at Phati Shilihar. 10. It has come on record that Phati Shilihar and Phati Khokhan are adjacent Phaties. In Ex.P-21 on the date of notification under Section 4, the market value of the land was assessed at Rs.1,43,747/- per bigha. In the present case, notification under Section 4 was published in gazette on 6.5.1989 about one year after the notification issued on 9.4.1988 in award No. 6, mentioned in Ex. P-21. In absence of evidence of comparable sales of the period around 6.5.1989 of Phati Shilihar, the award Ex. P-21 which pertains to lands of adjacent Phati Khokhan can be relied in determining the market value of the acquired land more particularly when the notification under Section 4 of the Act for the acquiring the land in Phati Khokhan covered in award Ex. P-21 was published nearly one year ago then the notification under Section 4 of the Act for acquiring the land involved in the present appeals. In ONGC Ltd. vs. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel and others 2005 (6) SCC 454, in paragraphs No. 11 and 15, it has been held as follows:- “While determining the amount of compensation payable in respect of the lands acquired by the State, indisputably, the market value therefor has to be ascertained. Although, there exist different modes for arriving at the market value for the land acquired; the best method, however, as is well known would be the amount which a willing purchaser of the land would pay to the owner of the land as may be evidenced by the deeds of sale. In the absence of any direct evidence on the said point, the court may take recourse to other methods viz. judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisition of lands made in the same village and/ or neighbouring villages. Such a judgement and award in the absence of any other evidence like deed of sale, report of expert and other relevant evidence, however, would have only evidentiary value. Instances of sale in respect of the similar land situated in the same village and/ or neighbouring villages should have been taken as guiding factors by the Reference Judge as also by the High Court. In the absence of any better evidence, the Reference Judge as also the High Court could have made addition in the sale prices for the land as evidenced by the said deeds of sale.” 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lila Ghosh (Smt.) (Dead) through LR. Tapas Chandra Roy vs. State of W.B. (2004) 9 SCC 337 has held that 10% increase per year in the market price is normally accepted principle. In award Ex. P-21 the market value of the land was assessed at Rs.1,43,747/- per bigha and after giving increase of approximately 10%, the District Judge has determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.1,58,121/- per bigha. Therefore, no fault can be found with the market value of the acquired land assessed by District Judge at Rs.1,58,121/- per bigha. The District Judge in the impugned award has allowed interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of possession for one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum. it is now settled that the interest at the rate of 9% per annum is payable for one year from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act and thereafter interest at the rate of 15% per annum shall be payable. Therefore, only to a limited extent the impugned award on the point of interest requires modification and is accordingly modified. 12. No other point was urged. 13. The result of the above discussion all the appeals being RFA Nos. 269 of 1998 with RFA Nos. 247, 248, 267, 268, 270, 271, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 296, 299 of 1998, RFA Nos. 112 and 136 of 1999 and RFA No.103 of 2000 are dismissed with the observation that interest at the rate of 9% shall be payable from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act for one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum. No costs. May 25, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem/sks) Judge. (i) 1. RFA No. 269 of 1998 Collector, Land Acquisition & anr.….. Appellants. Vs. Gokal & anr. ….. Respondents. 2. RFA No.247 of 1998 Collector, Land Acquisition & anr.….. Appellants. Vs. Om Parkash & ors. ….. Respondents. 3. RFA No.248 of 1998 Collector, Land Acquisition & anr.….. Appellants. Vs. Vinod Kumar & ors. ….. Respondents. 4. RFA No. 267 of 1998 Collector, Land Acquisition & anr.….. Appellants. Vs. Tej Partap ….. Respondent. 5. RFA No.268 of 1998 Collector, Land Acquisition & anr.….. Appellants. Vs. Dinu alias Dina Nath ….. Respondent. 6. RFA No.270 of 1998 Collector, Land Acquisition & anr .….. Appellants. Vs. Ved Ram & ors. ….. Respondents. (ii) 7. RFA No.271 of 1998 Collector, Land Acquisition & anr.….. Appellants. Vs. Santa Ram & anr. ….. Respondents. 8. RFA No.284 of 1998 Collector, Land Acquisition & anr.….. Appellants. Vs. Rameshwari Devi & ors. ….. Respondents. 9. RFA No.285 of 1998 Collector, Land Acquisition & anr.….. Appellants. Vs. Kehar Singh & anr. ….. Respondents. 10. RFA No.286 of 1998 Collector, Land Acquisition & anr.….. Appellants. Vs. Renuka ….. Respondent. 11. RFA No.287 of 1998 Collector, Land Acquisition & anr.….. Appellants. Vs. Devinder Kumar & anr. ….. Respondents. 12. RFA No.288 of 1998 Collector, Land Acquisition & anr.….. Appellants. Vs. Devinder & ors. ….. Respondents. (iii) 13. RFA No. 296 of 1998 Collector, Land Acquisition & anr.….. Appellants. Vs. Daga Ram & ors. ….. Respondents. 14. RFA No.299 of 1998 Collector, Land Acquisition & anr.….. Appellants. Vs. Kuldip Chand & ors. ….. Respondents. 15. RFA No.112 of 1999 Collector, Land Acquisition & anr.….. Appellants. Vs. Noyat Ram & ors. ….. Respondents. 16. RFA No.136 of 1999 Collector, Land Acquisition & anr.….. Appellants. Vs. Prem Chand & ors. ….. Respondents 17. RFA No.103 of 2000. Collector, Land Acquisition & anr.….. Appellants. Vs. Ram Lal & ors. ….. Respondents.