IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. RFA No. 438 of 2004 with RFAs No. 439 to 447 of 2004 Date of Decision : May 12, 2009 RFA No. 438 of 2004 Union of India …Appellant Versus: Bhagat Singh & Ors. …Respondents RFA No. 439 of 2004 Union of India …Appellant Versus: Roop Singh & Ors. …Respondents RFA No. 440 of 2004 Union of India …Appellant Versus: Lobha Ram & Ors. …Respondents RFA No. 441 of 2004 Union of India …Appellant Versus: Mohan Lal & Ors. …Respondents RFA No. 442 of 2004 Union of India …Appellant Versus: Salig Ram & Ors. …Respondents RFA No. 443 of 2004 Union of India …Appellant Versus: Ugam Ram & Ors. …Respondents RFA No. 444 of 2004 Union of India …Appellant Versus: Pushpa Devi & Ors. …Respondents 2 RFA No. 445 of 2004 Union of India …Appellant Versus: Gopal Dass & Ors. …Respondents RFA No. 446 of 2004 Union of India …Appellant Versus: Lal Dass & Ors. …Respondents RFA No. 447 of 2004 Union of India …Appellant Versus: Shyam Chand & Ors. …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No1 For the appellant(s): Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Asstt. Solicitor General of India. For the claimants : Mr. B. N. Sharma, Advocate For the State : Mr. R. K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The present appeals arise out of the common award dated 18.1.2003 passed by the District Judge, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr, H.P. in Land Reference Petition No. 41 of 1999 titled as Bhagat Singh v. L.A.C. & Others., Land Reference Petition No. 44 of 1999 titled as Roop 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 3 Singh v. L.A.C. & Ors., Land Reference Petition No. 45 of 1999 titled as Lobha Ram v. L.A.C. & Ors., Land Reference Petition No. 46 of 1999 titled as Salig Ram v. L.A.C. & Ors., Land Reference Petition No. 48 of 1999 titled as Mohan Lal v. L.A.C. & Ors., Land Reference Petition No. 50 of 1999 titled as Ugam Ram & Ors. v. L.A.C. & Ors., Land Reference Petition No. 53 of 1999 titled as Pushpa Devi v. L.A.C. & Ors., Land Reference Petition No. 54 of 1999 titled as Gopal Dass v. L.A.C. & Ors., Land Reference Petition No. 55 of 1999 titled as Lal Dass v. L.A.C. & Ors., Land Reference Petition No. 58 of 1999 titled as Shyam Chand v. L.A.C. & Ors. and, as such, are being taken-up together. Mr. B. N. Sharma, Advocate has invited my attention to the judgment dated 16.12.2008 delivered by this Court in RFA No. 430/2004 titled as Union of India v. Damodar Dass & Ors. According to him, the impugned award dated 18.1.2003 arises out of the very same acquisition proceedings which was also subject-matter in the aforesaid cases. A copy of the said decision is taken on record Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The claimants land amongst other land owners, situate in village Averi, H.P. was acquired vide Notification dated 16.11.1994, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) which was published in 4 the H.P. Rajpatra on 21.9.1995. Award No. 1/1998 dated 19.3.1998 was passed by the Collector, Land Acquisition. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, it may not be necessary to consider the evidence material and the contentions of the parties in these cases when the matter is concluded by the decision of this Court in Damodar Dass (supra). Several land owners including the present claimants filed Land Reference Petitions before the District Judge under Section 18 of the Act. The same were decided in terms of different awards passed by the District Judge. This Court, in Damodar Dass (supra), after relying upon the evidence led by the claimants therein upheld the award passed by the District Judge in one of the cases being Land Ref. Petition No. 40 of 1999, wherein the District Judge enhanced the compensation awarded by the Collector from Rs.52,500/- per bigha to Rs.60,000/- per bigha for all categories of land. In the impugned award, the Court below has also enhanced the compensation from Rs.52,500/- per bigha, as awarded by the Collector to Rs.60,000/- per bigha. The instant land being covered by the very same Notification, hence I see no reason as to why the appellants be also not awarded the same compensation. The fact that the claimants land was acquired in terms of the Notification issued under the provisions of the Act is not in dispute. The extent, the location and the entitlement of the claimants is also not in dispute. It is equally true that even though large chunk of land was acquired for setting up of defence 5 establishment but, however, individual share holding of each claimant is not very big and substantial. The increase of the amount of the market value is also not very high and is just about 10% from what was awarded by the Collector, Land Acquisition. In order to prove its case, the claimants examined Shri Gopal Dass (PW-1), Shri Prabhdayal (PW-2), Shri Bhagat Singh (PW-3), Shri Bhupinder Singh (PW-4) and Shri Lobey Ram (PW- 5). The witnesses proved on record Sale Deed Ext.PW-2/A dated 14.9.1993 in terms of which 2 biswas of land in village Averi was sold for a sum of Rs.6000/- (Rs. 3 lakh per bigha). In rebuttal, the respondents examined Shri Chain Ram (RW-1) and Shri Shyam Chand (RW-2). Village Averi is at a distance of 6 kms. from Rampur. That the acquired land was put to agricultural use and the claimants used to sow maize and wheat stands proved by PW-1. The crop sown on the acquired land was sold at Rampur, which in fact is closer from the acquired land and were having an annual income of Rs.one lac per bigha. According to the claimants, the market value of the acquired land was approximately 2½ lacs per bigha. With the acquisition of the land, as stands proved by them, there has been mass dislocation of population which has not only effected their personal life but also their businesses. The acquired land was well connected by road and having all modern facilities, such as, telephone, road, electricity, water, school and market also stands proved by PW-1. 6 Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that Rampur, Tehsil Headqurters, is a fast going township. In and around Rampur, many Mega Power Projects have already been established and are in the process of being commissioned. The acquired land is just at a distance of 6 kms. from Rampur. PW- 1 has also proved that the new power project by the name of Rampur Hydle Power Project is being constructed just at a distance of 4 kms. from Averi towards Duttnagar, which is near Rampur. Thus, the potentiality of the acquired land to be put to use other than agriculture cannot be ruled out and is in fact substantial. The Collector Land Acquisition, passed the Award on the basis of the annual average market price (Ext.RW-2/A) of village Nirmand, according to which the market price of the land at Nirmand for different categories of land was ; Ropa Awal = Rs.31,464/- per bigha, Ropa Doem = Rs.27,268/- per bigha, Ropa Soem = Rs.17,200/- per bigha, Bakhal Awal = Rs.18,458.88 per bigha. The same was considered as according to the witnesses of the State, five yearly average market price as also the annual average market price of village Averi was very less and could not be construed to be determinative of the true market value of the acquired land. The locational situation of village Averi from Rampur does not appear to be in dispute. Nirmand is at a distance of 12 7 kms. from village Averi. If this was so then why the average price of village Rampur was not taken into account by the Collector, is not evident from the record. The District Judge has held that the acquired land was not irrigated and even PW-1 has admitted that the acquired land was sandy. These findings are not in dispute. Be that as it may be the fact of the matter is that the claimants have proved through oral testimony that the market value of the land in Rampur is in the vicinity of Rs.4 lacs to 5 lacs per bigha. If this is so then the average market price of village Rampur ought to have been considered by the Collector while determining the market value of the acquired land. Rampur was in fact at a shorter distance from Averi than from Nirmand. It is not that the lands at Nirmand and Averi are of same quality or that the land at Rampur is of a different quality. The position of law is evidently clear and the market value of the basic valuation register maintained for the purposes of the collection of the stamps duty cannot be relied upon while determining the market value of the acquired land. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan vs. Bipin Kumar {2004(2) SCC 283}. The State did not lead any evidence except for proving on record Ext.RW-2/A which was the annual average market price of the land situated in village Nirmand. On the contrary, the claimants have proved on record Sale Deed Ext.PW-2/A, which was sold by Shri Prabhdayal. The genuineness of the sale transactions is not in dispute which is 8 evident from the line of cross-examination carried out by the present appellants. Therefore, the same has been rightly considered by the Court below for determining the market value of the acquired land. From the statements, it is evident that the land covered by the exemplar Sale Deed was not of good quality and did not have any locational advantage inasmuch as it was situated near a Nallah of village Averi. The sale transaction pertains to the very same village and is proximate to the time of the acquisition. In my view, no deduction is required to be carried out for the various reasons discussed hereinabove. No doubt, the exemplar sale deed pertains to only 2 biswas of land but, however, the fact of the matter is that the individual share holding of each land holder is also not substantial. There are two methods for assessing the market value of the acquired land, the first one is method of annual net income multiplied by appropriate capitalization of the same year and the second method is comparable sale transaction, but in the instant, the parties have contended and pleaded that the market value of the acquired land be assessed on the basis of the comparable market values. It is settled principle of law that the market value of the acquired land can be assessed on the basis of bonafide sale transactions on comparable basis. However, if there has been no sufficient number of bonafide sale transactions in the locality then the sale which has taken place in the adjoining area can be taken 9 into consideration for determining the market value of the acquired land. It is now settled principle of law that the market value of the acquired land has to be determined on the crucial date of notification under Section 4 of the Act and only the genuineness of the sale transaction has to be taken into account and the market value has to be assessed on the basis of comparable sale transaction which has taken place in the area concerned and proximity from time angle and proximity from situation angle has to be identified and every case must be dealt with its own and valuation of these factors would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rules. Common sense is the best and the most reliable guide. The Apex Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer {AIR 1988 SC 1652}, R. L. Jain (Dead) by LRs vs. DDA and others {2004(4) SCC 79} and Ravinder Narain and another v. Union of India {2003(4) SCC 481}, it has been held that the rate fixed for smaller plots in the same vicinity can be the basis for fixation of rate for large area acquired. In the present case, there is no dispute that the said sale transaction is of the same village. It is situated in the same village having same advantage and within the reasonable time of the date of Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. In my view, the same was rightly considered by the Court below. 10 It has come on record from the statement of PW-1 that village Nirmand is linked with Rampur via Averi. It has also come on record that as part of the package for acquisition of the land the State has earmarked area to rehabilitate the uprooted population. Undoubtedly this fact by itself would in no manner mean that the claimants should not be entitled to the fair market value of the acquired land, which has to be that of the willing seller and a purchaser at the time of acquisition of the land in question. In any event, there is nothing on record to prove that the claimants were also allotted any plots. I see no error in the impugned Award passed by the Court below. The claimants have been awarded compensation which is just, fair and reasonable. The entire material has been considered and appreciated correctly. I see no reason to interfere in the same. No other point urged. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeals are dismissed, so also the pending application, if any. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. May 12, 2009 (rana)