IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA R.F.A.No. 355 of 2001. Judgment reserved on :17.6.2009 Date of decision : July 2, 2009. State of Himachal Pradesh …Appellant. Versus Kamla Devi & Others. ....Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. D.N.Ronta, Advocate. Kuldip Singh , Judge The appellant has come in appeal against the award dated 6.11.2000 passed by Additional District Judge, Shimla in Land Reference No. 16-S/4 of 1989 assessing market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.9500/- per biswa on the basis of sale deed Ex.PW-6/A along with other consequential amounts, interest as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘Act’). 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes. 2 2. The facts in brief, are that notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 3.8.1985 for acquiring land comprised in khasra Nos. 26/1, 36/1, 398/1 and 398/2 measuring 0-10, 1-10, 0-3 and 0-6 bighas respectively, Kitas 4, Chak Kaljar, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla for construction of Matiana - Moheri Road. The Collector announced the award on 19.1.1988 and awarded compensation Rs.2831.95, solatium 30% Rs.849.58 and 12% interest Rs.821.27 total Rs. 4502.80. Kansha, Keharu, Smt. Mathi, Smt. Marchi and Smt. Besaru sons and daughters of Jhempa filed reference petition under Section 18 for determination of the market value of the acquired land. 3. The Reference Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhancement of compensation as claimed in the petition ? OPP. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest as claimed? OPP. 3. Relief. The Additional District Judge (I). Shimla announced the award on 27.9.1991, which was assailed in this Court and was set-aside in RFA No. 205 of 1992 dated 31.5.1999. The case was remitted to the reference Court with a direction to give opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence afresh, consider the same in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court and then decide the compensation accordingly. The reference court after remand had given afresh opportunity to parties to lead evidence. The respondents examined four witnesses. The appellant after remand did not produce 3 evidence and its evidence was closed by the reference court on 17.4.2000. An application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. was filed for substituting the names of respondents and one Devi Ram in place of original reference petitioners. The application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. was allowed on 6.6.2000 by the reference court. Thereafter, statements of one PW and one RW were recorded. The reference court announced the impugned award on 6.11.2000 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.9500/- per biswa on the basis of sale deed Ex.PW-6/A along with other consequential amounts, interest as per Act. The State has come in appeal against the impugned award. In the appeal vide order dated 23.4.2009, the name of Devi Ram was deleted. 4. Heard and perused the record. 5. Mr. A.K.Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the Additional District Judge has erred in relying the sale deed Ex.PW-6/A in determining the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.9500/- per biswa. The sale deed Ex.PW-6/A is of small holding and it cannot be made basis for assessing the market value of acquired land. 6. PW-1 Kansa has stated that land in village Kaljar was acquired for construction of Matiana – Moheri Road. In Chak Kaljar no sale of the land took place in the last 30 years and more particularly in those villages where road is to be constructed. Chak Kaljar is adjacent to Chak Kalinda. The quality of land in Chak Kaljar is better than Chak Kalinda. PW-2 Joginder Singh has also stated that village Kalinda is adjacent to Chak Kaljar. PW-6 Gurdas Ram 4 is the vendee of the sale deed Ex.PW-6/A. He has stated that he had good relations with vendor Nohaka, who sold one biswa land to him for Rs.9500/- vide sale deed Ex.PW-6/A. RW-1 Mast Ram, Patwari has placed on record one year average sale price of mauza Kaljar Ex.RW-1/A. RW-2 Laxami Singh, Patwari has placed on record one year average market value of land in village Kaljar Ex.RA. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned award and has submitted that in RFA No.19 of 2002 decided on 23.7.2007 the rate of Rs.2,16,000/- per bigha which was given by lower court was approved. In RFA No.339/2001, the rate of Rs.2,16,000/- per bigha or Rs.10,800/- per biswa was approved. 8. The reference court has relied sale deed Ex.PW-6/A for determining market value of the acquired land. It has come on record that no sale transaction took place in Chak Kaljar at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Chak Kalinda is adjacent to Chak Kaljar and, therefore, sale transactions of Chak Kalinda can be taken into consideration for determining the market value of the acquired land when no sale transaction having relevance was placed on record by the parties of Chak Kaljar. No doubt, the sale deed Ex.PW-6/A is of one biswa of land but in absence of other evidence on record, the sale deed Ex.PW-6/A can be taken into consideration for determining the market value of the acquired land more particularly when sale deed Ex.PW-6/A was executed on 7.9.1983 nearly two years prior to the publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. 5 9. It has come on record in the statement of PW-6 that because of relations, the vendor had sold one biswa land to him vide sale deed Ex.PW-6/A for a consideration of Rs.9500/-. PW-6 intends to convey that market value of one biswa of land covered by sale deed Ex.PW-6/A was more than Rs.9500/-. In RFA No.19 of 2002 and RFA No. 339 of 2001 the market value has been determined at Rs.10,800/- per biswa. In RFA No. 19 of 2002 as well as in RFA No. 339 of 2001 the notification under Section 4 of the Act was also issued on 3.8.1985 for acquiring land in Chak Kaljar for construction of Matiala – Moheri road. In the present case also notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 3.8.1985 for acquiring land in Chak Kaljar for construction of Matiala – Moheri road. In these circumstances, the rate of land approved in RFA No. 19 of 2002 and RFA No.339 of 2001 can be safely applied in the present case. It is significant to note here that the reference court has determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.9500/- per biswa, in RFA No.19 of 2002 and in RFA No.339 of 2001 the market value of the acquired land was approved at Rs.10,800/- per biswa. In other words, the market value determined by the reference court in the present case is on the lower side in comparison to the rate approved in RFA No.19 of 2002 and in RFA No. 339 of 2001. The respondents have not filed any appeal or cross-objection against the impugned award. In these circumstances, no benefit of rate approved in RFA No. 19 of 2002 and in RFA No.339 of 2001 can be extended to respondents. The reference court has rightly 6 appreciated the material on record. The appellant has failed to make out any case for interference. 10. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. ( Kuldip Singh ), Judge. July 2, 2009. (GR)