IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA No.2 of 1995 alongwith connected RFAs No. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23, 24, 25, 27, 34, 40, 61, 65, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 103 & 135 of 1995 Judgment Reserved on : April 19, 2007. Decided on : 25.4.2007 RFA No.2/1995 Phool Singh ....Appellant. VERSUS Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Respondents. RFA No.3/1995 Roshan ....Appellant. VERSUS Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Respondents. RFA No.4/1995 Matu ....Appellant. VERSUS Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Respondents. RFA No.5/1995 Nathu ....Appellant. VERSUS Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Respondents. RFA No.6/1995 Mukhtiara ....Appellant. VERSUS Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Respondents. RFA No.7/1995 Hans Raj and others ....Appellants. VERSUS Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Respondents. …2… RFA No.8/1995 Matu Ram ....Appellant. VERSUS Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Respondents. RFA No.9/1995 Krishan Lal ....Appellant. VERSUS Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Respondents. RFA No.10/1995 Shankar Lal ....Appellant. VERSUS Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Respondents. RFA No.11/1995 Mohindroo and another ....Appellants. VERSUS Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Respondents. RFA No.12/1995 Rasal ....Appellant. VERSUS Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Respondents. RFA No.13/1995 Jai Kishore (through LRs Upender Bansal & others) ....Appellants. VERSUS Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Respondents. RFA No.14/1995 Ram Kishore Bansal (Through LRs Shela Bansal & others) ....Appellants. VERSUS Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Respondents. RFA No.15/1995 Rajeev Bansal & others ....Appellants. VERSUS State of H.P. and others ....Respondents. …3… RFA No.23/1995 Punnu Ram ....Appellant. VERSUS Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Respondents. RFA No.24/1995 Santosh Bansal & others ....Appellants. VERSUS Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Respondents. RFA No.25/1995 Kamla ....Appellant. VERSUS Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Respondents. RFA No.27/1995 Labh Singh & others ....Appellants. VERSUS Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Respondents. RFA No.34/1995 Krishni ....Appellant. VERSUS Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Respondents. RFA No.40/1995 Nazir Din & others ....Appellants. VERSUS Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Respondents. RFA No.61/1995 Ramesh Kishore Bansal & others ....Appellants. VERSUS Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Respondents. RFA No.65/1995 Land Acquisition Officer and another ....Appellants. VERSUS Rasal ....Respondent. …4… RFA No.72/1995 Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Appellants. VERSUS Parkash Chand Bansal ....Respondent. RFA No.74/1995 Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Appellants. VERSUS Nazir Din & another ....Respondents. RFA No.75/1995 Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Appellants. VERSUS Matu Ram ....Respondent. RFA No.76/1995 Land Acquisition Officer and another ....Appellants. VERSUS Roshan ....Respondent. RFA No.77/1995 Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Appellants. VERSUS Punnu Ram ....Respondent. RFA No.80/1995 Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Appellants. VERSUS Ram Kishore Bansal (Through LRs Sheela Bansal & others) ....Respondents. RFA No.82/1995 Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Appellants. VERSUS Nathu Ram ....Respondent. RFA No.83/1995 Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Appellants. VERSUS Labh Singh and others ....Respondents. …5… RFA No.84/1995 Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Appellants. VERSUS Jai Kishore (Through LRs Upender Kunar Bansal & others) ....Respondents. RFA No.85/1995 Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Appellants. VERSUS Mukhtiara ....Respondent. RFA No.87/1995 Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Appellants. VERSUS Hans Raj and another ....Respondents. RFA No.88/1995 Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Appellants. VERSUS Matu Ram ....Respondent. RFA No.90/1995 Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Appellants. VERSUS Phool Singh ....Respondent. RFA No.91/1995 Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Appellants. VERSUS Shankar Lal (Through LRs Bachana Ram & others ....Respondents. RFA No.92/1995 Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Appellants. VERSUS Ramesh Kishore Bansal ....Respondent. RFA No.93/1995 Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Appellants. VERSUS Mohindroo & another ....Respondents. …6… RFA No.103/1995 Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Appellants. VERSUS Rajeev Bansal and others ....Respondents. RFA No.135/1995 Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Appellants. VERSUS Krishan Lal ....Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant(s) : Mr. K.D. Sood, Ms Devyani Sharma, Mr. Anil Kumar vice Mr. Sandeep Kaushik & Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocates, in RFAs No.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23, 24, 25, 27, 34, 40 & 61 of 1995. Mr. M.S. Chandel, Advocate General, with Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Additional Advocate General, in RFAs No.65, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 103 & 135 of 1995. For the respondents : Mr. M.S. Chandel, Advocate General, with Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Additional Advocate General, in RFAs No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23, 24, 25, 27, 34, 40 & 61 of 1995. Mr. K.D. Sood, Ms Devyani Sharma, Mr. Anil Kumar vice Mr. Sandeep Kaushik & Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocates, in RFAs No. 65, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 103 & 135 of 1995. Surjit Singh, Judge All the appeals, particulars whereof are given in the title of this judgment, arise out of the same award, i.e. award dated 27.10.1994, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …7… referred to as the Act, passed by the Additional District Judge, Sirmour; therefore, the same are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. One set of appeals has been filed by the Reference Petitioners, as they are not satisfied with the market value of the acquired land assessed by the learned Additional District Judge. The other set has been filed by the Land Acquisition Collector, who is dissatisfied with the award with regard to the enhancement of compensation in respect of Banjar Kadim and Nakabil classes of land. 3. Facts relevant for the disposal of the appeals may be noticed. The Government of Himachal Pradesh issued a Notification, under Section 4 of the Act, which was published in the Rajpatra on 2.4.1988. The Notification was amended lateron several times. As per amended version of the Notification, 211 Bighas land situated in village Johron and Rampur Jattan of Tehsil Nahan in District Sirmour was sought to be acquired for a public purpose, i.e. setting up of industries. Out of the notified land, 4 bighas 4 biswas land was Obar Abal; 23 bighas 6 biswas Obar Doem; 177 bighas 7 biswas Banjar Kadim; and 6 bighas 6 biswas Nakabil kind of land. Thereafter, process was started for the acquisition of the land. Land Acquisition Collector, after issuing requisite notices to the land owners and other interest holders and making inquiry, determined the market value of the land as follows: (a) Obar Abbal Rs.35,814.92 (b) Obar Doem Rs.27,150.02 (c) Banjar Kadim Rs. 6,931.92 …8… (d) Nakabil Rs. 500.00 There also stood some trees on the acquired land, compensation for which was assessed separately. 4. Owners/interest holders were dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector. Therefore, they required the Land Acquisition Collector to make references, under Section 18 of the Act to the District Judge. Accordingly, references were made. 5. Owners/interest holders, in their reference petitions, stated that the acquired land was situated between Kala Amb and Trilokpur, which was fast developing into industrial area and, thus, it had great potential for setting up of industrial units. It was alleged that the market value of the acquired land was not less than Rs.1 lac per Bigha and the entire land, irrespective of kind, had the same value, as the whole of it had the potential for setting up of industrial units. Valuation of trees was also alleged to be on the lower side. 6. Land Acquisition Collector filed reply, in which it was stated that the valuation was done as per rates of the land prevailing in the area. 7. Learned Additional District Judge, after recording the evidence of both the sides, concluded that the compensation for Obar Abal and Obar Doem kinds of land, as assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector, was correct and called for no enhancement. As regards, the land of Banjar Kadim and Nakabil classes, it was held that the market value of Banjar Kadim was Rs.12,000/- per Bigha and Nakabil type of land was Rs.6,000/- per Bigha and compensation for …9… these two classes of land was enhanced accordingly. The Land Acquisition Collector was required to pay the enhanced compensation with compulsory acquisition charges, under Section 23(1-A) of the Act and interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and @ 15% per annum for the remaining period from the date of the award. 8. Grievance of the owners/interest holders is that the learned Additional District Judge has not assessed the market value of the acquired land correctly. According to them, market value of the acquired land was not less than Rs.1 lac per Bigha, irrespective of its class, because the entire land had the same potential, viz. the setting up of industry, as it is surrounded by various industries, which existed even before the issuance of the Notification, under Section 4 of the Act. 9. Land Acquisition Collector is aggrieved by the enhancement in compensation awarded by the Additional District Judge, in respect of Banjar Kadim and Nakabil kinds of land. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence. 11. It has come in the evidence that even before the issuance of Notification, under Section 4 of the Act, a number of industries had been set up in the close vicinity of the acquired land all along Kala Amb-Trilokpur Road. Some chunks of the acquired land also abut the aforesaid Kala Amb-Trilokpur Road. Other portions of the acquired land are not very far off from the road. 12. PW-1 Phool Singh, one of the claimants, testified that the acquired land had a number of industries on three sides of it. He also stated that a part of the acquired land abuts the Kala Amb-Trilokpur …10… Road. PW-2 Hans Raj, another landowner, also made a similar statement. PW-4 Kamal Kishore, Patwari of Halqua Trilokpur, proved on record a tatima Ex. PW-4/A and the copies of Jamabandis Exs. PW4.B and PW-4/C, pertaining to village Johron. The tatima and the jamabandis show that there are industries in the close vicinity of the acquired land. The witness stated that the industries have been set up along the Kala Amb-Trilokpur Road and that some of the industrial units are even beyond the acquired land towards Trilokpur. PW-5 Ishwar Chand, another Patwari, stated that the industries around the acquired land had been set up, before the acquisition took place. He proved Aks Shajra Ex. PW-5/A, pertaining to village Rampur Jattan, and the copy of the Jamabandi Ex. PW-5/B, in respect of the same village. The Aks Shajra and the Jamabandi prove that already there were atleast two factories in village Rampur Jattan and those were situated close to the acquired land. Land Acquisition Collector examined three witnesses. These witnesses though stated that the acquired land did not have any potential for establishment of factories prior to acquisition, yet they could not categorically deny the suggestions thrown to them in the cross-examination that the acquired land had a number of industries around it before the start of the acquisition process. They simply expressed ignorance, inspite of their claim that they had visited the acquired land. One of these witnesses, namely RW-1, stated that he had visited the area 50-60 times. RW-3 Kamal Kishore, Patwari, examined by the Land Acquisition Collector admitted in his cross-examination that a number of factories had been set up beyond the acquired land even prior to the start of the process for the acquisition of the land, in question. …11… 13. The above discussed evidence conclusively proves that the acquired land was situated in the midst of a number of industries, when the notification for its acquisition was issued. RW-3 Kamal Kishore, Patwari, examined by the Land Acquisition Collector itself, stated that some industries had been set up even beyond the acquired land towards Trilokpur. The witness also stated that some of the acquired land abutted on the aforesaid road. That means the acquired land had very good potential for setting up industries. Now, if the land had the potential for setting up industries, the whole of it, irrespective of the kind or class of the land, can legitimately be presumed to have the same market value. 14. Petitioners relied upon six transactions to prove the market value of the land. Out of these six transactions, only three can be stated to be relevant, as they had taken place approximately within one year of the issuance of the Notification, in question. One transaction is dated 30.1.1987. Copy of the sale deed is proved on record. Through this transaction 10 biswas land, situate in Village Johron, was sold for Rs.16,000/-. The class of the land is Gair Mumkin Khala (Khala in that area is the name for Nullah). The other transaction is dated 5.10.1988. As per copy of the sale deed proved on record 10 biswas land was sold for Rs.30,000/-. The land was Chahi (irrigated). The third transaction is evidenced by sale deed dated 27.8.1987. The subject matter of this transaction was 13 biswas Chahi Land. It fetched a price of Rs.46,000/-. Two of these transactions had taken place in the year 1987. One of these two pertaining to 10 biswas of Gair Mumkin Khala land took place in …12… January, 1987. The notification for acquisition of the land, in question, was issued in April, 1988. Therefore, an increase at the rate of atleast 10 per cent is required to be given to work out the market value of the land, in 1988, when the notification was issued. This way the market value of the land sold through the sale deed dated 30.1.1987 comes to Rs.35,000/- per Bigha, approximately. The other transaction of the year 1987 had taken place in August, 1987, or say about eight months prior to the issuance of the notification, under Section 4 of the Act. The land that was the subject matter of this transaction was sold at the rate of Rs.70,000/- per Bigha. Increase is required to be made atleast @ 7% to work out the market value of this land in April, 1988. By such increase the value comes to Rs.75,000/- per Bigha, approximately. The third transaction has taken place in the year 1988. The average market value, according to these three transactions, comes to Rs.63,000/- per Bigha. 15. This is the market price in respect of small pieces of land measuring 10 to 13 biswas. For working out the market value of a large area, a cut @ 40% is required to be made, on account of development charges and utilization of a part of the land for roads, drains and other civic amenities. Thus, the market value of the acquired land works out at Rs.37,800/- per Bigha. 16. There is absolutely no evidence with respect to the allegation that the compensation assessed for the trees standing on the acquired land is inadequate. So, the landowners/interest holders are not entitled to any increase in the compensation assessed and …13… paid by the Land Acquisition Collector for the trees standing on the acquired land. 17. As a sequel to the above discussion and findings, appeals filed by the landowners/interest holders, i.e. RFAs No.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23, 24, 25, 27, 34, 40 & 61 of 1995 are accepted and it is ordered that the petitioners be paid compensation for their acquired land at the uniform rate of Rs.37,800/- per Bigha, together with compulsory acquisition charges, increase under Section 23(1-A) of the Act and interest at the statutory rates, i.e. 9% per annum for the first year and @ 15% for the remaining period from the date of the award of the Land Acquisition Collector. It is further ordered that the difference between the amounts of compensation already paid and the amount of compensation to which they have been held entitled hereinabove be worked out and paid to them within two months. Appeals filed by the Land Acquisition Collector, i.e. RFAs No.65, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 103 & 135 of 1995 are dismissed. April 25, 2007(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J.