IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No. 256 of 2002 and RFA No. 257 of 2002 Date of Decision: 22nd April, 2008 RFA No. 256 of 2002 Collector, L.A.C. Appellant Versus Durga Dass Respondent RFA No. 257 of 2002 Collector, L.A.C Appellant Versus Anup Ram Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? Yes. For the appellant: Mr. Suneel Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.Vivek Thakur, Deputy Advocate General and Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Both the appeals arise out of common award dated 6.12.2001 passed by District Judge, Kullu, in Ref. Petitions No. 101/2001 and 102/2001, titled as Durga Dass vs. Collector Land Acquisition and another and Anup Ram vs. Collector, Land acquisition and another, respectively and as such are being heard and disposed of together. The land belonging to the claimants was acquired for public purpose, namely, construction of Manali-Vashishat link road, Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 located in Phati Vashishat, Kothi Jagatsukh, Tehsil and District Kullu. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued on 11.4.1996 which was published in H.P. Rajpatra on 1.5.1996. As per the Collector’s award No.2/97 dated 22.3.1997 the market value of the acquired land was determined at Rs.23,070/- per Biswa. The market value of the claimants’ building was separately determined as Rs.2,46,270/-. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed land Reference petitions under Section 18 of the Act and to establish their claim the claimants examined Durga Dass (PW-1), Nirat Ram (PW-2), Bhader Singh (PW-3) and proved on record copy of award passed by the Collector Ext.PW-1/A and copy of judgment (Ext. PW-1/B) passed by District Judge, Kullu in Civil suit No. 17/98 and also sale deed dated 26.9.1992 (Ext.PW-2/A). In support of their case, the respondents examined Jeet Ram (RW-1), Kamal Chand (RW-2), Daya Ram (RW-3), Smt. Dharmi (RW-4), Yashbir Sharma (RW-5), S.B.Thakur (RW-6) and proved on record sale deeds (Ext.RW-1/A), (Ext.RW-2/A), (Ext.RW-3/A) and (Ext.RW-4/A) and also estimate and extract of costs (Ext.PW-6/A to Ext.PW-6/L). Relying upon the estimates prepared by the respondents being RW-6/A to RW-6/L, the Court below determined the value of the acquired building at Rs.3,82,325/-. I see no infirmity in the same and the challenge to the same is thus rejected. The value of the house has been determined on the evidence led by the appellant-State. No error in the award, to this extent could be pointed out. 3 For the determination of the market value of the land, the Court below relied upon the award Ext.PW-1/A and enhanced the market value to Rs.70,000/- per Biswa. The Court below did not rely upon the sale deed placed on record by the State- appellant herein, for the reason that the vendors and vendees being RW-1, RW-2, RW-3 and RW-4 admitted that in the sale deeds the sale consideration was mentioned on the lower side to save the stamp duty, whereas actually the land was sold at higher prices. In Kanwar Singh vs. Union of India, (1998) 8 SCC 136, the Apex Court has held that market value at the time of Notification under Section 4 of the Act is to be seen and that while fixing such value of the acquired land, things to be considered were at what price parties were ready to sell and purchase the land. In Shaji Kuria Kose vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (2001) 7 SCC 650, the Apex Court laid down the factors for assessing value of the acquired land as under:- “True that Courts adopt comparable sales method of valuation of land while fixing the market value of the acquired land. While fixing the market value of the acquired land, comparable sales method of valuation of the land such as capitalization of net income method or expert opinion method. Comparable sales method of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land at which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it had been sold in the open market at the time of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, comparable sales method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive. There are 4 certain factors which are required to be fulfilled and on fulfillment of those factors the compensation can be awarded, according to the value of the land reflected in the sales. The factors laid down inter alia are (1) the sale must be a genuine transaction, (2) that the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act, (3) that the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land and (4) that the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired. If all these factors are satisfied, then there is no reason why the sale value of the land covered by the sales be not given for the acquired land. However, if there is a dissimilarity in regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land between land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to the court to reduce the compensation for acquired land than what is reflected in the sales depending upon the disadvantages attached with the acquired land.” Ext.PW-1/A is the award dated 28.12.1993 passed by the Collector whereby one of the claimants’ land was also acquired for construction of Manali Sarchu road. As per this award, the notification for acquisition was issued on 30.1.1989 and compensation arrived by way of compromise and settlement was Rs.70,000/- per Biswa. Importantly, the land acquired in terms of award Ext.PW-1/A and the impugned award is with respect to the very same Khasra number, area and village. The claimants also referred to and relied upon the copy of judgment passed by the Civil Court (Ext.PW-1/B). As per the said judgment, the claimant Anup Ram was also awarded Rs.70,000/- per Biswa for the land, which was damaged by the State while constructing the road acquired in terms of award Ext.PW-1/A. Shri Durga Dass (PW-1) has clearly and 5 categorically deposed that the acquired land and the land covered in terms of award Ext.PW-1/A and judgment (Ext.PW-1/B) are adjoining and of same nature, quality and category. Thus the claimants have been able to sufficiently establish, by clear and cogent material that the market value of the claimants’ land was Rs.70,000/- per Biswa, which has been rightly determined by the Court below. The sale deeds produced by the respondents have been rightly rejected by the Court below. The impugned award is well reasoned and is based on clear, cogent and reliable material on record. The determination of the market value is based on the sound principles of law. I find no perversity or reason to interfere with the same. Both the appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs. 22nd April, 2008 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.