HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFAs No. 220 of 2000, 222 of 2000, 223 of 2000, 224 of 2000, 225 of 2000, 229 of 2000, 230 of 2000, 231 of 2000, 233 of 2000, 234 of 2000, 235 of 2000, 236 of 2000, 237 of 2000, 238 of 2000, 240 of 2000, 241 of 2000, 242 of 2000, 247 of 2000, 248 of 2000, 250 of 2000, 251 of 2000, 252 of 2000, 253 of 2000, 254 of 2000, 255 of 2000, 256 of 2000, 258 of 2000, 260 of 2000, 261 of 2000, 262 of 2000, 263 of 2000 and 264 of 2000. Reserved On: 6.4.2010 Decided on: 22.4.2010 1.RFA No.220 of 2000 H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority ………Appellant. Versus Baldev Ram and others ………Respondents. For title of other connected appeals & presence, please see overleaf. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the appellant: Mr.Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr.J.R. Thakur & Mr.Janesh Gupta, Advocates. For respondents No.1 to 5: Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. For respondent No.6: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General. Whether reporters of local newspaper may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes - 2 - 2.RFA No.222 of 2000 H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority ………Appellant. Versus Inder Ram and others ………Respondents. For the appellant: Mr.Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr.J.R. Thakur & Mr.Janesh Gupta, Advocates. For respondents No.1(a) Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, to 1(d): with Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. For respondent No.2: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________ 3.RFA No.223 of 2000 H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority ………Appellant. Versus Gian Chand and others ………Respondents. For the appellant: Mr.Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr.J.R. Thakur & Mr.Janesh Gupta, Advocates. For respondents No.1, Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, 2 & 6 to 9 with Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. For respondent No.10: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________ 4. RFA No.224 of 2000 H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority ………Appellant. Versus Sarwan and others ………Respondents. For the appellant: Mr.Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr.J.R. Thakur & Mr.Janesh Gupta, Advocates. For respondents No.1, Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, & 3 to 7: with Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. For respondent No.8: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________ - 3 - 5.RFA No.225 of 2000 H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority ………Appellant. Versus Gurmail Singh and others ………Respondents. For the appellant: Mr.Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr.J.R. Thakur & Mr.Janesh Gupta, Advocates. For respondents No.1(a) Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, to 1(d), 2 and 3: with Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. For respondent No.4: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________ 6.RFA No.229 of 2000 H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority ………Appellant. Versus Ramesh Kumar and others ………Respondents. For the appellant: Mr.Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr.J.R. Thakur & Mr.Janesh Gupta, Advocates. For respondents No.1(a) Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, to 1(e) & 3(a) to 3(c): with Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. For respondent No.4: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________ 7.RFA No.230 of 2000 H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority ………Appellant. Versus Jati and others ………Respondents. For the appellant: Mr.Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr.J.R. Thakur & Mr.Janesh Gupta, Advocates. For respondents No.1 Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, to 4: with Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. For respondent No.5: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________ - 4 - 8.RFA No.231 of 2000 H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority ………Appellant. Versus Sukh Ram and another ………Respondents. For the appellant: Mr.Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr.J.R. Thakur & Mr.Janesh Gupta, Advocates. For respondent No.1: Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. For respondent No.2: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________ 9.RFA No.233 of 2000 H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority ………Appellant. Versus Hadish Mohd. and others ………Respondents. For the appellant: Mr.Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr.J.R. Thakur & Mr.Janesh Gupta, Advocates. For respondents No.1 Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, to 12 with Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. For respondent No.13: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________ 10.RFA No.234 of 2000 H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority ………Appellant. Versus Ramji Dass and others ………Respondents. For the appellant: Mr.Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr.J.R. Thakur & Mr.Janesh Gupta, Advocates. For respondents No.1(a) Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, to 1(h) & 2 to 5: with Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. For respondent No.6: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________ - 5 - 11.RFA No.235 of 2000 H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority ………Appellant. Versus Bachnoo Ram and others ………Respondents. For the appellant: Mr.Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr.J.R. Thakur & Mr.Janesh Gupta, Advocates. For respondents No.1 Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, to 5: with Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. For respondent No.6: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________ 12.RFA No.236 of 2000 H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority ………Appellant. Versus Hemant Singh and others ………Respondents. For the appellant: Mr.Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr.J.R. Thakur & Mr.Janesh Gupta, Advocates. For respondents No.1(a)(i) Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, to 1(a)(iv) & 1(b) to 1(e) with Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. 2(a) to 2(f): For respondent No.3: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________ 13.RFA No.237 of 2000 H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority ………Appellant. Versus Dayal and others ………Respondents. For the appellant: Mr.Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr.J.R. Thakur & Mr.Janesh Gupta, Advocates. For respondents No.1 Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, & 2(a) to 2(f): with Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. For respondent No.3: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________ - 6 - 14.RFA No.238 of 2000 H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority ………Appellant. Versus Yash Pal and others ………Respondents. For the appellant: Mr.Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr.J.R. Thakur & Mr.Janesh Gupta, Advocates. For respondents No.1 Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, to 8 with Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. For respondent No.9: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General. ______________________________________________ 15.RFA No.240 of 2000 H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority ………Appellant. Versus Ram Lok and others ………Respondents. For the appellant: Mr.Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr.J.R. Thakur & Mr.Janesh Gupta, Advocates. For respondent No.1: Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. For respondent No.3: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________ 16.RFA No.241 of 2000 H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority ………Appellant. Versus Biru Ram and others ………Respondents. For the appellant: Mr.Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr.J.R. Thakur & Mr.Janesh Gupta, Advocates. For respondents No.1 Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, to 3, 4(a) to 4(f) & with Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. 5 to 8: For respondent No.9: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________ - 7 - 17.RFA No.242 of 2000 H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority ………Appellant. Versus Sita Ram and others ………Respondents. For the appellant: Mr.Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr.J.R. Thakur & Mr.Janesh Gupta, Advocates. For respondents No.1 Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, to 3, 4(a) to 4(g), with Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. 5 & 6: For respondent No.7: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________ 18.RFA No.247 of 2000 H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority ………Appellant. Versus Surinder Ram and others ………Respondents. For the appellant: Mr.Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr.J.R. Thakur & Mr.Janesh Gupta, Advocates. For respondents No.1(a) Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, to 1(d), 2(a) to 2(c), with Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. 3 to 9, 10(a) to 10(c), 13 and 14: For respondent No.15: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________ 19.RFA No.248 of 2000 H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority ………Appellant. Versus Dayalo and others ………Respondents. For the appellant: Mr.Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr.J.R. Thakur & Mr.Janesh Gupta, Advocates. For respondents No.1 Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, to 3: with Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. - 8 - For respondent No.4: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________ 20. RFA No.250 of 2000 H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority ………Appellant. Versus Surinder Ram and others ………Respondents. For the appellant: Mr.Ajay Mohan Goel & Mr.J.R. Thakur, Advocates. For respondents No.1(a) Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, to 1(d), 2(a) to 2(c), with Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. 3 and 4: For respondents No.5&6: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________ 21. RFA No.251 of 2000 H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority ………Appellant. Versus Dwaraka Devi and others ………Respondents. For the appellant: Mr.Ajay Mohan Goel & Mr.J.R. Thakur, Advocates. For respondents No.1 Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, to 6: with Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. For respondents No.7&8: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________ 22. RFA No.252 of 2000 H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority ………Appellant. Versus Balak Ram and others ………Respondents. For the appellant: Mr.Ajay Mohan Goel & Mr.J.R. Thakur, Advocates. For respondents No.1(a) Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, - 9 - to 1(e) & 2 to 4: with Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. For respondents No.5&6: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________ 23. RFA No.253 of 2000 H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority ………Appellant. Versus Achhru Ram and others ………Respondents. For the appellant: Mr.Ajay Mohan Goel & Mr.J.R. Thakur, Advocates. For respondents No.1 Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, to 3: with Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. For respondents No.4&5: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________ 24. RFA No.254 of 2000 H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority ………Appellant. Versus Surat Ram and others ………Respondents. For the appellant: Mr.Ajay Mohan Goel & Mr.J.R. Thakur, Advocates. For respondents No.1 Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, to 3, 4(a) to 4(g), with Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. & 5 to 7: For respondents No.8&9: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________ 25. RFA No.255 of 2000 H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority ………Appellant. Versus Keshri Devi and others ………Respondents. For the appellant: Mr.Ajay Mohan Goel & Mr.J.R. Thakur, Advocates. For respondents No.1 Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, & 2: with Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. - 10 - For respondents No.3&4: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________ 26. RFA No.256 of 2000 H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority ………Appellant. Versus Inderjit Singh and others ………Respondents. For the appellant: Mr.Ajay Mohan Goel & Mr.J.R. Thakur, Advocates. For respondents No.1: Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. For respondents No.2&3: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________ 27. RFA No.258 of 2000 H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority ………Appellant. Versus Buta Ram and others ………Respondents. For the appellant: Mr.Ajay Mohan Goel & Mr.J.R. Thakur, Advocates. For respondents No.1&2: Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. For respondents No.3&4: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________ 28. RFA No.260 of 2000 H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority ………Appellant. Versus Purni and others ………Respondents. For the appellant: Mr.Ajay Mohan Goel & Mr.J.R. Thakur, Advocates. For respondents No.2 Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, to 7 with Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. - 11 - For respondents No.9&10: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________ 29. RFA No.261 of 2000 H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority ………Appellant. Versus Karam Chand and others ………Respondents. For the appellant: Mr.Ajay Mohan Goel & Mr.J.R. Thakur, Advocates. For respondents No.1 Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, to 5: with Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. For respondents No.6&7: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________ 30. RFA No.262 of 2000 H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority ………Appellant. Versus Karam Chand and others ………Respondents. For the appellant: Mr.Ajay Mohan Goel & Mr.J.R. Thakur, Advocates. For respondents No.1 Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, to 5: with Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. For respondents No.6&7: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________ 31. RFA No.263 of 2000 H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority ………Appellant. Versus Dilip Singh and others ………Respondents. For the appellant: Mr.Ajay Mohan Goel & Mr.J.R. Thakur, Advocates. For respondents No.1(a) Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, & 1(b) & 2 to 7: with Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. - 12 - For respondents No.8&9: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________ 32. RFA No.264 of 2000 H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority ………Appellant. Versus Ram Singh and others ………Respondents. For the appellant: Mr.Ajay Mohan Goel & Mr.J.R. Thakur, Advocates. For respondents No.1 Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, to 4: with Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. For respondents No.6&7: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________ V.K. Ahuja, J.: This judgment shall dispose of all the aforesaid appeals preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) filed by the H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority, arising out of the common award of the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, Camp at Nalagarh, dated 15.3.2000, passed in Land Ref.No.1-S/4 of 1996, titled Mangal versus Land Acquisition Collector and others, and other 45 connected reference petitions, vide which he awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per bigha alongwith solatium and interest. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 13.9.1993 issued under Section 4 of the Act, the land was acquired for construction of a housing colony to be constructed by the appellant H.P. - 13 - Housing Board (now H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority). The total land acquired was measuring 286 bigha and 5 biswas, situated in Village Bilawali Labana and Village Bilawali Gujjran, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. The land of the petitioners and others was acquired. The Land Acquisition Collector entered into reference and awarded compensation for different varieties of land as under: “Village Bilawali Labana: 1.Cost of Lehari Barani measuring 67-15 Bighas @ 40,554/- per bighas Rs.27,47,534.00 2.Cost of Tala Abal Barani measuring 67-15 bighas @ 30,010/- per bigha Rs.20,33,178.00 3.Cost of Tala Boam Barani measuring 30-01 bighas @ Rs.20,227/-, P.B. Rs.6,09,324.00 4.Cost of Changer Abal Barani measuring 21-13 bighas @ 15,410/- P.B. Rs.3,33,627.00 5.Cost of Ghair Mumkin measuring 0-5 bigha @ 8,111/- P.b. Rs.2,028.00 “Village Bilawali Gujjran: 1.Cost of Lehari Barani measuring 34-7 Bighas @ 32,580/- P.B. Rs.11,19,123.00 2.Cost of Tala Abal Barani measuring 47-8 bighas @ 27,858/- P.B. Rs.13,20,470.00 3.Cost of Tala Doam Barani measuring 3-4 bigha @ 10,860/- P.B. Rs.34,752.00 4.Cost of Changer Abal Barani Rs.1,23,804.00” - 14 - measuring 11-8 bighas @ 10,860/- P.B. The petitioners in all these cases filed reference petitions under Section 18 of the Act praying that adequate compensation has not been awarded and the compensation accordingly deserves to be enhanced. The main assertions made by the petitioners were that the Land Acquisition Collector has not taken into account the prevailing market price of the land in these revenue estates at the time of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. It was alleged that the land in these revenue estates was being sold at the rate of Rs.3.00 lacs to Rs.5.00 lacs per bigha. It was also alleged by the petitioners that their land is on the road side, in the middle of industrial area, Baddi and is just at a distance of one furlong from Baddi market and Baddi Bus Stand and near to State Highway which goes from Nalagarh to Kalka. It was also alleged that the Land Acquisition Collector has not considered the value of the standing crops or trees and the damage caused to the land by severance and as such the compensation deserves to be enhanced accordingly. The respondent/H.P. Housing Board denied the assertions and pleaded that adequate compensation has been paid and the Land Acquisition Collector had considered the sale deeds while determining the market value which does not deserve to be enhanced accordingly. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court: - 15 - 1. Whether the Land Reference petitions are vague? OPR 2. Whether the References have not been filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act? OPR 3. Whether the compensation awarded at the rate of Rs.40,554/-, 30,010/-, 20,227/-, 15,410/- and 8,111/- of respective land as per bighas is inadequate and unjust? OPP 4. Relief. Parties led their evidence and the learned trial Court vide its impugned award enhanced the compensation to Rs.60,000/- per bigha irrespective of the quality of land. Being aggrieved, the H.P. Housing Board (now H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority) had filed the present appeals. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant were that the learned trial Court had wrongly enhanced the compensation to Rs.60,000/- per bighas, though there was no material to justify the same. It was further submitted that the compensation has been enhanced for all categories of land irrespective of the quality of the same, which approach of the learned trial Court was not correct. It was also submitted that while determining the compensation or the market value, the learned trial Court did not make comparison of the two villages as to whether the land was similar in nature, was close to State Highway or Industrial Area or that they were entitled to uniform rate for both the villages irrespective of their proximity to Nalagarh Highway etc. It was submitted that the learned trial Court had failed to take - 16 - into consideration the sale deeds proved before it, which rather proved that the rate per bigha comes to Rs.30,000/- or less depending upon the sale deeds proved, but the learned trial Court enhanced it to Rs.60,000/-, without there being any material on record to hold so. It was further submitted that the purpose for acquisition of the land was the same i.e. the construction of the housing colony and therefore, 40% deduction had to be made from the sale deeds proved in evidence since this much deduction was required as paths were required to be made and this deduction of 40% has been held to be reasonable from the value as determined from the sale deeds and as such, the compensation awarded was excessive, which deserves to be reduced considerably. To substantiate his point that 40% deduction was liable to be made from the sale deeds proved in evidence, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the following decisions. The decision in Shimla Development Authority and others versus Smt.Santosh Sharma and another, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1791, was relied upon, wherein it was held by their Lordships that 40% deduction has to be made towards the development charges. In that case, the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per bigha, which was enhanced to Rs.1.00 lac by the District Judge. On appeal, the High Court had observed that deduction of 40% of the compensation awarded towards development charges was correct and the deduction of 40% was held to be proper. - 17 - Another decision relied upon was in K.Vasundara Devi versus Revenue Divisional Officer (LAO), (1995) 5 Supreme Court Cases 426, wherein it was observed in para 5 of the judgment as under: “When genuine and reliable sale deeds of small extents were considered to determine market value, the same will not form sole basis to determine market value of large tracts of land. Sufficient deduction should be made to arrive at the just and fair market value of large tracts of land.” The deduction made to the extent of 40% by the High Court was held to be proper. The decision in Basavva (Smt.) and others versus Spl. Land Acquisition Officer and others, (1996) 9 Supreme Court Cases 640, shows that it was observed that when there was a sale deed of small plot situated at a distance of more than 1 km. and the land under acquisition in an undeveloped area and likely to take long time for development, observation was made that deduction between 33½% to 53% from the market value for development charges held to be valid in several decisions. In that case, the High Court gave additional deduction of 12% and in view of the circumstances of the case, it was held that the principle adopted by the High Court of making deduction of 65% cannot be said to be illegal. Another decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant was in Suhru Ram and others versus Land Acquisition Collector, 2009 (3) Shim.L.C. 1, wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court had held the - 18 - deduction at 40% to be appropriate on the basis of the price per square meter as per the sale deeds. Reliance was also placed upon the decision in Land Acquisition Collector versus Kaila and others, 2010(1) Shim.L.C. 25, wherein this Court had held the deduction at 40% from the rate of sale as proper after referring to various decisions. Similar observations were made by the learned Single Judge of this court in Land Acquisition Collector, Mandi versus Smt.Suresh Kumari and others, 2008 (3) Shim.L.C. 116, wherein the development charges to the extent of 40% were deducted. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it was for the State to have led evidence to prove as to what was the market value of the land on the date of the issuance of the Notification, which burden had not been discharged by the State. It was submitted that the deduction can be to the extent of even 33% and some guess work is permissible. However, it was also submitted that when the area is already developed or it was a fast developing area being near to the Industrial Town, Baddi in Nalagarh, no deduction was required to be made in this regard. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the respondents/petitioners had placed reliance upon the decision in Union of India versus Mangat (Dead) by LRs. and others, (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases 609, in which case it was observed by their Lordships that location of the land was to be a prime factor in determination. The Collector fixed the land value based on its quality while - 19 - the Additional District Judge disregarding Collector’s approach fixed the market value taking the average of price as determined by the sale deeds produced. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge, ignoring the location of different parcels of the land, enhanced the compensation. It was held that the market value of the land which abuts the National Highway would be much more than the land which is farther away from the National Highway. Therefore, the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge was restored. The stress had been on the location of the land in question in this case. Another decision which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents was in Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer versus Ramanjulu and others, (2005) 9 Supreme Court Cases 594. It shows that the market value was fixed for lands acquired two years earlier for the same purpose for which lands in the present cases was acquired and it was held that escalation at the rate of 10% for two years is to be added to it for determining the market value of the current land. The deduction was made to the extent of 15% only since the land was adjoining the developed lands of the first and second phases of the industrial estate. The decision in C.R. Nagaraja Shetty(2) versus Special Land Acquisition Officer and Estate Officer and another, (2009) 11 Supreme Court Cases 75, was relied upon wherein the High Court had deducted a sum of Rs.25/- per sq.ft. for development charges and had awarded Rs.75/- per sq.ft. considering the location of the land. It was - 20 - observed that the land acquired was only for widening of the National Highway, therefore, no question arises for such development or any costs therefor. Hence, it was held that the High Court erred in directing deduction on account of the development charges. Reliance was also placed upon the decision in Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and others versus Executive Engineer, Gujarat and another, AIR 2001 Supreme Court