IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. RFA No. 341 of 2007 Date of Decision : May 21, 2010 State of H.P. & Ors. …Appellants Versus: Ram Payari & Ors. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellants: Mr. R. M. Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents. Mr. V. S. Chauhan, Advocate Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The State has filed this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act assailing the impugned award dated 31.10.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Shimla, H. P., in Land Ref. Petition No. 27-R/4 of 04/2000 titled as Ram Pyari & Ors. vs. State of H.P. & others. 2. For the public purpose, namely, ‘Construction of Rohru-Barara road’, the State Govt. issued Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The Collector Land Acquisition issued his award No.22 of 85 dated 29.7.1997. In terms thereof the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 market value for different categories of the land was determined as under:- Classification of Land Rate per bigha 1. Kiar Awal/Doyam Rs.53,639.00 2. Bakhal Awal Rs.22,528.00 3. Bakhal Doyam Rs.11,800.00 3. Aggrieved of the same, claimant Sh. Ishwar Singh filed a land reference petition under Section 18 of the Act. Particulars of his land are as under:- Khasra No. Area Nature 910/2 0-06-47 Bakhal Doyam 4. In the claim petition the claimants sought enhancement of the compensation by claiming market value to be Rs.2 lacs per bigha. The claimants also sought compensation towards the trees on the acquired land. 5. Reference petition was opposed by the State. 6. The Court below has enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs.11,800/- to Rs.20,000/- per bigha. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 8. In my considered view there is no scope of interference in the present appeal filed only by the State. Even at the time of hearing of the petition the claimants did not assail the findings of the impugned award. 3 9. Importantly the transactions entered into by the parties in village Gangtoli were not taken into account by the Court below for the simple reason that there is nothing on record to prove the location of the acquired land with that of the exemplar sale land. Compensation however was determined and enhanced on the basis of the sale transactions placed on record by the respondents. 10. While passing the award the Court below has observed as under:- “17. The transaction of sales produced by the petitioner relates to Gangtoli and cannot be made basis for assessing the market value of the land. The petitioner has not brought any material to prove the location of the acquired land and the land which has been sold in Gangtoli. The transaction also pertains to the period prior to the date of notification, whereas the transaction of sale Ext.R1 in respect of Mauza Barara proximate to the period of notification makes it evident that there is considerable difference between the market value of Gangtoli and Barara. Therefore, also the instances of sale of Mauza Gangtoli cannot be made basis to assess the market value of the acquired land which is situate in Barara chak. 18. The transaction of sale which is comparable with the acquired lanad situate in Barara is Ext.R2, copy of sale deed dated 3.6.1995 of Sh. Kewal Ram in favour of Sh. Prem Chand vide which 1 biswas of land was sold for Rs.1,350/- i.e. Rs.27,000/- per bigha. After making deduction of 25% on account of the smallness of plant, the market value of Bakhal Doyam comes to Rs.20,250/- or say Rs.20,000/- per bigha. Therefore, the market value of 4 Bakhal Doyam is assessed Rs.20,000/- per bigha. This issue is decided in favour of the petitioners.” 11. From the record it could not be showed as to how the said reasoning adopted by the Addl. District Judge, Shimla is erroneous, perverse or not borne out from the record. 12. It is a settled position of Law that the claimants are entitled to get compensation for the acquired land which is just, fair and reasonable. Enhancement is also not on the higher side. 13. Even with regard to the fruit bearing trees the compensation assessed is fair and reasonable. The same is based on the material on record. No illegality could be pointed out with respect to the same. Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned award. The appeal filed by the State is consequently dismissed. 14. Needless to add the parties shall be entitled to the benefits of the directions given by the Apex Court in Sunder vs. Union of India {2001(7)SCC 211}. CMP No.1246/2007 In view of the disposal of the main matter, this application also stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. May 21, 2010. (rana)