IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RFA No. 413 of 2006 Date of Decision: 19.11.2009. General Manager, Ranjit Sagar (Thein Dem) ...Appellant. Versus. Sansar Chand and others ..Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the Appellant(s): Mr.Aman Sood, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ashok Sharma, counsel for R-1. Mr.Kulbhushan Khajuria, Counsel for R-2. Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.G. for R-3&4. Deepak Gupta, J. ( oral): This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Chamba whereby he has assessed the compensation of the land at Rs.13,500/- per biswa. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a large area of land measuring 38 bighas 11 biswas was acquired by the State of Himachal Pradesh for construction of a reservoir for Ranjit Sagar (Thein) Dam vide notification dated 19.4.1997 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Land Acquisition Collector announced his award on 30th January, 1999 whereby he fixed compensation of the land on different rates. The claimants filed Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of the Compensation. - 2 - The learned District Judge awarded compensation at Rs.13,500/- per biswas. Hence, the present appeal. The main contention of Sh.Aman Sood is that the petitioners only produced one sale deed to prove the value of the land and this sale deed only related to one biswa five biswansis and hence could not have been made the basis for enhancement of the compensation. Vide sale deed Ext.PW-1/A, PW-4 Chaman Lal sold one biswa and five biswansis of land for a consideration of Rs.25,000/-. The Apex Court has laid down in a number of cases that even the sale of a small piece of land is relevant and can be used for assessing the market value of a larger piece of land but suitable deduction must be made while computing the market value. There are two reasons for this. The first is that when a small piece of land is sold on per square meter basis it normally fetches a much higher market price than when a large tract of land is sold. Secondly when a large piece of land is sold a lot of money is spent on the development etc. of the land and therefore deductions have to be made. In the present case the market value as per the sale deed quoted above works out to Rs.20,000/- per biswa. The learned Court held that taking all factors into account the deduction should be 40%. This is reasonable. In most cases deductions of more than 40% is not made. This high deduction is being made - 3 - because the land being sold was only less than 60 sq.yards whereas the acquired land was more than 32000 sq.yards. However, the learned Court below has assessed the market value as Rs.13,5000/- per biswas. The value of the land as per sale deed Ext.PW-4/A works out to Rs.20,000/- per biswa and after making deduction of 40% the value comes to Rs.12,000/- per biswa and not Rs.13,500/- as assessed by the learned District Judge. Accordingly the award of the learned District Judge is modified to this extent that the market value of the acquired land is fixed at Rs.12,000/- per biswa. The claimants-petitioners shall also be entitled to statutory solatium, additional compensation and interest as per the provisions of the Act. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. Before parting with this case, I am constrained to observe that the records are not been properly maintained in the office of the Land Acquisition Officer, Dalhousie. Proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act are judicial in nature. One of the issues in the present case was whether petition under Section 18 had been filed within limitation. The petitioners examined PW-3, Record Keeper from the office of the Land Acquisition Officer, Dalhousie who stated that there is no record available in their office with regard to the filing of the reference petition. A perusal of the record shows that the reference petition is purported to have been - 4 - prepared on 16.2.1999. On 1.1.2000 this reference petition was received from the office of the Collector, Land Acquisition, Thein Dam, Dalhousie. The reference petition itself does not bear any endorsement of having been filed in the office of the Land Acquisition Officer or the date of such filing. The reference petition has been sent along with the letter of the Collector, Land Acquisition dated 9.12.1999 enclosing the reference petition. Even in this case the date of filing of the reference petition has not been given. This reflects a very sad state of affair. How can it be decided that a reference petition is within time or not unless some proper record in this behalf is maintained. It would be pertinent to mention that the Apex Court in Babu Ram and others Vs. State of U.P and another 1995 (2) SCC 689 in Para 38 has made the following directions:- “38. However, with a view to avoiding uncertainty and fluctuation, it would be appropriate that, the Collector, while paying compensation under Section 31, should explain in vernacular language of the claimant, informing all persons interested in the compensation that they have a right to protest against the compensation determined under Section 11 before receiving the same; has right to seek reference in writing under Section 18 of the civil court and that the application should be made expressing the specific objections in writing within the limitation prescribed under Section 18. In case of his failure to avail of the same, he would not be entitled to further right and remedy to seek higher compensation. In case the claimant be illiterate, it should be properly explained to him in his mother - 5 - tongue. The statement made in this behalf by the Collector should be in the mother tongue of the claimant. The Collector should append a certificate that it was truly, correctly and properly explained and obtain the signature or thumb impression in token thereof and this should be kept as part of the record of the award proceedings. He should also maintain a regular register in his office in the seriatim duly signed by him and sealed and be kept in the personal custody of the Collector. This would not only obviate the hardship to the interested persons but also prevent corrupt practices in fabricating the applications for reference after the bar of limitation. In this behalf, it is also necessary that the Collector/LAO should also maintain another register for receipt of the applications under Section 28-A indicating the date of its receipt, seal of the office and personal signature of the Collector/LAO concerned and the receipt thereof duly communicated to the Government or the authorized officer in proviso to Section 11 of the Act.” The aforesaid law has been laid down by the Apex Court and all the Collectors/Land Acquisition Collectors are bound to follow the same. The State should ensure that the directions issued by the Apex Court are complied with in letter and spirit. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh who shall ensure that instructions are issued to all the Officers exercising judicial and quasi judicial powers to ensure that proper registers are maintained wherein entry is made showing the filing of all documents in accordance with law. November 19, 2009(PV) ( Deepak Gupta ), J. - 6 -