HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No. 122 of 2000, RFA No.123 of 2000, RFA No.124 of 2000 & RFA No. 125 of 2000. Reserved On: 2.3.2010 Decided on: 26.3.2010 RFA No.122 of 2000 Vidya Devi and others ………Appellants. Versus State of H.P. and another ………Respondents. RFA No.123 of 2000 Ram Rattan ………Appellant. Versus State of H.P. and another ………Respondents. RFA No.124 of 2000 Amar Singh and others ………Appellants. Versus State of H.P. and another ………Respondents. RFA No.125 of 2000 Lachhi Ram and others ………Appellants. Versus State of H.P. and another ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellants: Ms.Archana Dutt, Advocate. (in all the appeals) For the respondents: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, (in all the appeals) with Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General and Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. Whether reporters of local newspaper may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - V.K. Ahuja, J.: This judgment shall dispose of all the aforesaid appeals arising out of the same award of the learned District Judge, Shimla, dated 1.11.1999, passed in Land Ref.No.26-S/4 of 1998, titled Vidya Devi and others versus State of H.P. and another, Land Ref.No.20-S/4 of 1998, titled Ram Rattan versus State of H.P. and another, Land Ref.24-S/4 of 1998, titled Amar Singh and others versus State of H.P. and another, Land Ref.23-S/4 of 1998, titled Lachhi Ram and others versus State of H.P. and another. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the land of the appellants was acquired vide a notification issued by the State Government for construction of a road named Kanda-Ladvi-Kunihar link road. The land was situated in Chak Kanda, Tehsil and District Shimla and the notification was issued sometime prior to the year 1979. It was further alleged that no notification of those portions of land was issued nor any compensation was paid to the reference petitioners. Some of the land holders filed a writ petition in the High Court, bearing No.922 of 1995, for issuance of necessary directions to the State of H.P. so that the compensation of the land utilized in the construction of the said road was paid to them. This Court vide order dated 14.12.1995 directed the State Government to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and to complete the same within a period of one year. Thereafter, the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as “the - 3 - Act”) was issued by the State Government on 11.9.1996. Thereafter, the proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Act. A total area acquired was measuring 11-2 bighas. Out of the same, an area measuring 4-14 bighas belonged to the appellants and others, who had filed the reference petitions. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award, dated 1.7.1997, assessed the compensation for different kinds of land at the following rates: Sl.No. Nature of the land Rate per biswa 1. Katul Rs.2000/- 2. Bakhal Awbal Rs.1750/- 3. Bakhal Doem Rs.1500/- 4. Bakhal Some Rs.1250/- 5. Banjar Kadim Rs.1000/- 6. Ghasni Rs.750/- Aggrieved by the said award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, the appellants filed the reference petitions under Section 18 of the Act. Replies were filed by the respondents and the learned District Judge, vide his impugned award, granted rates for different categories of land as under: Sl.No. Nature of the land Rate per biswa 1 Bakhal Awbal Rs.1944/- 2. Bakhal Doem Rs.1666/- 3. Bakhal Some Rs.1388/- 4. Banjar Kadim Rs.1110/- 5. Ghasni Rs.833/- - 4 - Being aggrieved by the award passed by the learned District Judge, the appellants have filed the present appeals. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The first plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, during the course of arguments, was that the learned District Judge had failed to consider the sale deeds Ext.P-2 and Ext.PW-5/A, duly proved, and as such the findings of the learned District Judge are liable to be set aside. A perusal of the award passed by the learned District Judge shows that both the documents had been duly considered by the learned District Judge and, thus, were considered at the time of determining the market value on the date of the notification. Therefore, it is clear that this plea has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants unnecessarily during the course of arguments. I may refer to the judgment of the learned District Judge in this regard. A perusal of para 9 of the judgment passed by the learned District Judge shows that the learned District Judge had referred to both the documents and had observed that PW-3 Phulu Devi, the vendor, has proved the sale deed Ext.P-2 and the other sale deed Ext.PW-5/A has been proved by PW-5 Sunita, the vendee. After referring to the evidence of the parties and the facts of the case, it was concluded by the learned District Judge that as per her own statement PW-3 Phulu Devi has stated that Sahiya Ram, to whom she sold one biswa of land, has also sold one biswa of land to his own son Ashok Kumar around the same time when - 5 - she sold the land to Sahiya Ram. This clearly shows that Sahiya Ram did not need any land and since both the transactions were effected at the same time, it was held by the learned District Judge that the transaction Ext.P-2 did not appear to be genuine. Another reasoning which had been given was that this sale deed Ext.P-2 was executed few days after the directions were issued by this Court in a writ petition for acquisition of the land. Thus, there is no substance in the plea that the sale deed Ext.P-2 was not considered and sound reasoning has been given by the learned District Judge for not placing reliance upon this sale deed. The sale deed Ext.PW-5/A was considered, vide which four biswas of land was purchased for Rs.21,000/- from one Gian Chand. It was admitted by the vendee Sunita PW-5 that the acquired land was at a distance of 1/2 km. from the land purchased by her, while the land sold vide Ext.PW-5/A was in a developed area abutting the road and had very high potential for construction of building. The sale deed Ext.PW-5/A was dated 14.3.1996, i.e. after the directions were issued by this Court in the writ petition. It was observed by the learned District Judge that this land had better potential for construction of the building, as per the admission made by PW-5 Sunita, and accordingly, this was held to be not the direct basis for determining the market value of the acquired land for various reasons. However, the learned District Judge had concluded that the value of the land sold through Ext.PW-5/A can legitimately - 6 - be assumed to be double the best kind of land involved in the reference petitions i.e. Bakhal Awbal. From the above discussion, it is clear that both the sale deeds were considered for arriving at a correct market value on the date of the issuance of the notification and those findings are based upon sound reasoning and call for no interference by this Court. Some other pleas had also been taken in the grounds of appeal that the learned District Judge had not considered properly the average price Ext.P-1, since the fourth transaction was an assumed transaction. In view of the fact that no arguments were advanced on this point as to how the said copy was not considered or relied upon, it is not necessary to give findings on that point. Moreover, the average price cannot be the basis and the sale deeds produced are the relevant and had been duly considered by the learned trial Court. This point, therefore, needs no finding. The other point canvassed during the course of arguments was that the learned trial Court should not have granted different rates for different categories of land and the flat rate should have been granted. In support of this submission, reliance was placed upon a decision of this Court in Sanatan Dharam Pratinidhi Sabha versus The Land Acquisition Collector, Shimla and others, Latest HLJ 2005(H)) 1014. A reference was made to para 25 of the judgment but a perusal of the same shows that there is nothing which lays down that rates for different - 7 - categories of land cannot be fixed differently. The observations made in para 25 may be reproduced as under: “……………….It is also by now well settled that compensation cannot generally be fixed with mathematical precision. Element guess work has always to be there. Situation of the acquired land, its potential for being developed in times to come, coupled with its location and topography, are some of the illustrative and relevant circumstances which have bearing and are also to be taken note of while determining its market value. Other relevant factors are its proximity, frontage and regular shape to road. Whereas largeness of area is its disadvantage. Purpose of acquisition is another relevant factor while assessing its market value.” This decision does not lay down that flat rate has to be granted irrespective of the kind of land. A perusal of the grounds of appeal shows that no specific ground was taken in this regard though in the relief claimed, it was mentioned that the market value be fixed at Rs.2.00 lac per bigha irrespective of the kind of land but it was nowhere alleged or substantiated during the course of arguments that the rates for different categories of land cannot be fixed differently. The findings were given by the Land Acquisition Collector fixing the rates for different quality of land which have been confirmed by the learned District Judge, who had enhanced the value for different categories of land and nothing has been brought to notice of the Court which can substantiate that no different rates can be granted and accordingly this plea is repelled being devoid of any force. No cross appeals have been filed by the respondents/State against the awarding of the interest, but - 8 - reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and another versus Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, (2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 142, wherein their Lordships had considered the decision in Special Tehsildar (LA) PWD Schemes vs. M.A. Jabbar, (1995) 2 SCC 142, in which a view had been taken that the interest was payable from the date of issuance of notification and not from the date of taking the possession. Accordingly, it follows from the above discussion that the appellants shall be entitled to interest from the date of the issuance of the notification only as per the law of the land. The appeals are dismissed accordingly with these observations. The amount shall be calculated by the Land Acquisition Collector and paid to the appellants within a period of four months, if not already paid. If the amount has already been paid, including the interest, as awarded by the learned District Judge, the same shall not be recovered back from the appellants. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. A copy of this judgment be placed on the record of other connected appeals. March 26, 2010. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.