IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. RFA No. 209 of 2008 Date of Decision : March 19, 2009 Jagdish Sharma …Appellant. Versus: State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. Virender Singh Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents. Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A.G. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral). The owner/claimant has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the District Judge, Solan, District Solan (H.P.) in Land Reference No. 11-S/4 of 2006 titled as Jagdish Sharma vs. State of H.P. & others, decided in terms of award dated 1.5.2008. Appellant’s land being khasra No. 203/1, measuring 8 biswas, situate in village Koyal Sanog, Tehsil Arki, Distt. Solan, H. P., was acquired by the State for the public purpose namely, construction of Pump House. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued on 16.5.2002. It was published in the H.P. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Rajpatra on 8.6.2002. The Collector Land Acquisition passed his award No. 13 of 2005, dated 31.5.2005 under Section 11 of the Act. The market value of the acquired land was determined to be Rs.6669/- per bigha. i.e. Rs.333.45 paise per biswa. In all total compensation of Rs.6205/- was awarded to the claimant. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed Land Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Act, claiming a sum of Rs.5 lacs per bigha (Rs.25,000/- per biswa). Based on the pleadings of the parties, the District Judge framed the following issues:- “1.Whether the compensation assessed is inadequate and liable to be enhanced?” Opportunity to lead evidence was afforded to the parties and the claimant examined himself as PW-1 and another witness Shri Hari Chand (PW-2). Sale Deed Ext.PW- 1/D, award passed by the Addl. District Judge, Solan in Land Reference Petition No. 4-S/4 of 99 (Ext.PW-1/E), certificate Ext.PW-1/B and revenue record Ext.PW-1/C were proved by him. Respondents-State examined Shri S. K. Sangrai, Assistant Engineer who placed on record Sale Deed Ext.RW-1/B and Ext.RW-1/C. Appreciating the material on record, the Court below came to the conclusion that none of the Sale Deeds placed on record by the parties could have been made basis for 3 determining the market value of the acquired land as there was nothing on record to prove the similarity of the acquired land with that of the land covered by the exemplar Sale Deed. However, the Court below accepted award Ext.PW- 1/E to be the basis for determining the true and correct market value of the acquired land and by giving annual increase of 5% thereupon, determined the market value of the acquired land to be Rs.1,26,000/- per bigha or Rs.6300/- per biswa. The State has accepted the award and the claimant alone has filed the appeal seeking enhancement of the award. Mr. Chauhan has contended that the market value of the land ought to have been determined by giving an annual increase of at least 10% on the market value, so determined in terms of Award Ext.PW-1/E. Mr. Thakur, learned Addl. Advocate General has supported the award for the reasons set out therein. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. The scope of the present appeal is quite narrow. That award Ext.PW-1/E can be made basis for determining the market value of the acquired land is not in dispute. The State has not filed any appeal and accepted the same. Award Ext.PW-1/E which has attained finality pertained to the acquisition proceedings dated 9.10.1993. In terms of the said award, land for public purpose, namely, 4 ‘construction of Kunihar Bainj-Ki-Hatti Braham Pukhar road’ was acquired in village Shelly. The Collector determined the market value to be Rs.35,000/- per bigha, which stood enhanced to Rs.84,000/- per bigha by the District Judge, in the Land Reference Petition . Through the statements of Pw-1, PW-2 as also the certificate Ext.PW-1/B, it is evident that the acquired land situate in village Koyal Sanog is same and similar to the land acquired in village Shelly, and both the villages are immediately adjoining to each other. In the instant case, the notification acquiring the land was issued on 16.5.2002. That the whole of the acquired land was utilized for the public purpose is not in dispute. No developmental activity was required to be carried out on the same. It had no minus points or disadvantages attached with it. There is nothing on record which would have necessitated any deduction from the market value determined on the basis of the award Ext.PW-1/E. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that there is an overall increase of land prices for the last decade. Arki is a fast going township. It is centrally located and is a focal point and hub of business activities. In the recent past there has been developments due to liberal industrial policy pertaining to the State. There has been rapid developments and the prices in District Solan and more 5 particularly Tehsil Arki, where the land is situated, have generally increased manifold. The construction work on the appellant’s land had actually commenced in 1992 whereas the Notification acquiring the land was issued in 2002. The land in question is a small chunk of land and the appellant has been deprived of his constitutional right over a long period of time. Keeping in view the attending circumstances as also the appellant’s contention that the possession of the land actually was taken over much prior to the issuance of the Notification under section 4 of the Act, it would be only just, fair and reasonable that the annual increase of the price of the market value, as determined vide award Ext.PW-1/E, be taken to be 10% instead of 5%. The impugned award is modified and it is held that the claimant shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.1,68,000/- per bigha (Rs.8,400/- per biswa). The appellant shall be entitled to all statutory benefits on the enhanced market value in accordance with Law. The appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified to the aforesaid extent. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. March 19, 2009. (rana)