HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No. 262 of 1998 alongwith CR No. 419 of 2001 Reserved on : 23.4.2010 Decided on: 14.5.2010 RFA No.262 of 1998 Harminder Kumar and others …..Appellants. Versus State of H.P. and another ……Respondents. For the appellants: Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. CR No.419 of 2001 Harminder Kumar …..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others ……Respondents. For the appellants: Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. V.K. Ahuja, J.: This is an appeal filed by the appellants under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (here-in-after referred to as ‘the Act’) against the award, dated 5.6.1998, passed by the learned District Judge, Solan. By the said award, the learned District Judge had enhanced the ________________ Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - compensation to Rs.16,92,835.50 against the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector amounting to Rs.6,95,085/-. This judgment shall also dispose of the civil revision petion filed by the petitioner Harminder Kumar Modi on the ground that the learned trial Court has wrongly dismissed the execution petition as fully satisfied filed by the petitioner. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 13.11.1982 for acquiring the land for judicial court complex, Solan and Sessions House, Solan. Notifications under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act were also issued and the Land Acquisition Collector entered into reference and thereafter announced the award. The total area of the acquired land was measuring 5529 sq.m. out of which 4762 sq.m. area was situated in Mauja Thodo, Solan and remaining area of 767 sq.m. was situated in Mauja Saproon, Tehsil and District Solan. The acquired property consisted of land and buildings standing thereon. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at the rate Rs.52.00 per sq.m. for the acquired land and for the built up buildings over the acquired land awarded a sum of Rs.3,14,066.80, Rs.2,107/- for fruit trees, Rs.740/- for non-fruit trees, totaling Rs.6,04,421.80 and a sum of Rs.90,663.20 as compulsory acquisition charges. In all, he awarded compensation amounting to Rs.6,95,085.00. - 3 - 3. The petitioners not satisfied with the award filed reference petition under Section 18 of the Act which was decided by the learned Additional District Judge. In appeal, the case was remanded back to the learned District Judge, Solan by this Court for re-determination and accordingly after remand, the learned District Judge recorded the evidence led by the petitioners only and thereafter vide his impugned award increased compensation by Rs.10,91,259.70. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 5. On appraisal of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, it is clear that this Court has to consider the question as to whether the market value of the acquired property, at the relevant time, was fixed properly or not and as to what was the value of the debris or the structure standing over the land. It has been rightly observed by the learned trial Court that there were two methods to assess the market value of the land, firstly based upon the rental value of the buildings, meaning thereby that the rent received from the property with suitable multiplier or secondly, the value of the building i.e. the value of debris. In so far as the assessment on the basis of the rent received from the property is concerned, the learned trial Court has referred to the evidence of the petitioners including the statement of petitioner Harminder Modi as PW-1. It was rightly observed - 4 - that in spite of the fact that three of the buildings out of four acquired were on rent with Education Department of the State of H.P., as conceded by the petitioner himself, but neither any efforts were made by the petitioner to state the rent being received from the Education Department for the three buildings nor such questions were put up to the petitioner in his statement during his cross examination by the respondent/State. Apart from this, the petitioners had examined some witnesses, most of them were bank officials to prove the rent being paid by them for the buildings taken on rent by them at different times, but in the absence of the relevant evidence having not been led by the petitioners, it was rightly held by the learned trial Court that the value of the buildings on the basis of the rent received from the property cannot be determined, particularly, in view of the facts having not been stated by the petitioner or elicited from him during his cross examination. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence led, the learned trial Court rightly concluded that the value of the debris or building cannot be on the basis of rental value and has to be assessed on the basis of the value of the debris i.e. the second method, which was required to be adopted. 6. Accordingly, for the value of the land, a reference has to be made to the amount granted by the different courts in the awards and the sale deeds proved in evidence, which shall be referred below. - 5 - 7. I will firstly make a reference to the awards passed by the different courts in land reference cases. The land was acquired vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 13.11.1982 and, therefore, for the lands acquired vide notifications prior to 13.11.1982 can be said to be relevant for consideration. 8. The first copy of the award proved is Ext.PA, dated 30.6.1982, of the District Judge, Shimla in respect of pooled accommodation at Solan. The notification was issued in that case on 14.3.1974 i.e.8 years prior to the notification in the present case. In that case, the Land Acquisition Collector had granted compensation at the rate of Rs.7.00 per square meter which was enhanced by the learned District Judge to Rs.70.00 per square meter. 9. The second copy of the award proved is Ext.PB, dated 21.11.1981, of the Court of the learned District Judge, Solan. The notification in that case was also issued on 14.3.1974. The Collector had awarded Rs.9.00 per square meter for Banjar Kadim and Rs.7.00 per square meter for other kind of land. The learned District Judge had awarded Rs.60.00 per square meter in the year 1981, but for the land for which notification was issued in the year 1974. 10. The third copy proved in evidence is Ext.PC of the court of the learned District Judge, Solan for improvement of Thodo Ground as in the present case. The notification was issued on 21.3.1980, i.e. sometime prior - 6 - to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case and, therefore, the said copy is relevant. The Collector had assessed the land at Rs.42.00 per square meter, which was enhanced to Rs.150/- per square meter by the court of the learned District Judge. 11. The next copy proved is Ext.PD, which is an award pertaining to the widening of Thodo Ground at Solan. This award shows that the Collector had awarded Rs.25.87 per square meter, which rate, on reference, was increased to Rs.88.00 per square meter. The notification was issued in the year 1974 i.e. 8 years prior to the notification in the present case. 12. Ext.PE is the copy of the award dated 21.2.1979 for widening of Kalka-Shimla Road and the notification was issued in the year 1971. The Land Acquisition Collector had awarded Rs.2.00 square meter, which was enhanced to Rs.80.00 per square meter. 13. The next copy is Ext.PF of award, dated 13.4.1983. The notification was issued prior to 23.12.1978. The Collector awarded Rs.70.00 per square meter, which was enhanced to Rs.102.00 per square meter. The next copy of award is Ext.PG for Solan-Jaunaji road. The compensation, as awarded by the Collector, was from Rs.3.00 to Rs.33.00 per square meter for different kinds of land, which was enhanced, on reference, to Rs.60/- to Rs.70/- per square meter. - 7 - 14. It follows from the above discussion that the only award, the copy of which is Ext.PC, can be said to be relevant since the notification was issued on 21.3.1980 i.e. sometime prior to the issuance of the notification in the present case and in the said case, on reference, the compensation had been enhanced to Rs.150.00 per square meter and that was also for improvement of Thodo Ground at Solan and major chunk of the present land is also in Thodo Ground, Solan. Therefore, the said decision is quite relevant for the just determination of the market value of the land. Accordingly, on the basis of the copies of the awards, the petitioners can be said to be entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.150/- per square meter. 15. However, the learned District Judge had not relied upon the sale deeds Exts.PH to PP produced by the petitioners and Exts.R-35 to R-39 produced by the respondents on the ground that the parties had failed to examine either the vendor or the vendee or the witnesses to prove the bona fide transaction. However, according to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer versus Narasaiah, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1117, the certified copies of the sale deeds are relevant and can be considered by the Court even in the absence of the vendor or the vendee having been examined by the Court. Since in view of the latest law laid down by the Apex Court, the learned trial Court had not considered these sale deeds, which were relevant, therefore, a reference is being made to these sale deeds as under: - 8 - Sl. No. Document Location of the land Total area (in sq. m.) Total amount paid Amount per square meter 1. Ext.PH, sale deed dated 25.11.1982 Thodo Ground, Solan 68 Rs.35,000/- Rs.514.71 2. Ext.PJ, sale deed dated 25.11.1982 Thodo Ground, Solan 68 Rs.35,000/- Rs.514.71 3. Ext.PK, sale deed dated 25.11.1982 Thodo Ground, Solan 76 Rs.35,000/- Rs.460.53 4. Ext.PL, sale deed dated 11.11.1982 Thodo Ground, Solan 40 Rs.8,000/- Rs.200.00 5. Ext.PM, sale deed dated 11.11.1982 Thodo Ground, Solan 40 Rs.8,000/- Rs.200.00 6. Ext.PN, sale deed dated 2.7.1975 Solan 315.5 Rs.30,000/- Rs.85.35 7 Ext.PO, sale deed dated 2.7.1975 Solan 351.5 Rs.30,000/- Rs.85.35 8. Ext.PP, sale deed dated 6.8.1980 Solan 62 Rs.8,000/- Rs.129.03 The major portion of the land was in Thodo Ground, Solan and small portion was nearing the National Highway at a - 9 - distance of 20-25 yards, as admitted by PW-1 Harinder Kumar Modi, the petitioner, in his statement and, therefore, the rates of the sale deeds proved in evidence of Thodo Ground can be said to be relevant. 16. A comparison of these sale deeds shows that the highest amount awarded per square meter was Rs.514.71, as per Exts.PH and PJ. However, this amount was paid for small pieces of land and, therefore, in case deduction of 40% is made, the rate, per square meter, comes to Rs.308.83, or say, Rs.300.00 per square meter. 17. It follows from the above discussion that according to the sale deeds, as discussed above, the rate, per square meter, comes to Rs.300.00. 18. On the other hand, the respondents have tendered in evidence the sale deeds Exts.R-35 to R-39. A perusal of the sale deed, dated 23.3.1982, Ext.R-35, shows that 207 square meter of land in Thodo Solan was sold for a consideration of Rs.8,000/-. The value of the land per square meter comes to Rs.38.64. The sale deed, dated 26.10.1982, Ext.R-38, shows that the land measuring 479 square meter was sold for a sale consideration of Rs.25,200/-. The value of the land per square meter comes to Rs.52.60. The sale deed, dated 26.10.1982, Ext.R-37, shows that the land measuring 480 square meter was sold for a consideration of Rs.25,200/-. The value of the land per square meter comes to Rs.52.50. A perusal of Ext.R-36 shows that the land measuring 142 square meter was sold for - 10 - Rs.5,000/-, vide sale deed dated 13.9.1982. Thus, the value of the land per square meter comes to Rs.35.21. Ext.R-39 shows that vide sale deed dated 18.12.1982, the land measuring 492 square meter in Thodo Solan was sold for Rs.20,000/-. 19. A comparison chart of the sale deeds Exts.R- 35 to R-39, which all are of the year 1982, can be made as under: Sl.No. Document Total area in sq.m. Rate per sq.m. Total sale consideration 1. Ext.R-35 207 Rs.38.64 Rs.8000/- 2. Ext.R-36 142 Rs.35.21 Rs.5,000/- 3. Ext.R-37 480 Rs.52.50 Rs.25,200/- 4. Ext.R-38 479 Rs.52.60 Rs.25,200/- 5. Ext.R-39 492 Rs.40.65 Rs.20,000/- 20. Therefore, these sale deeds are relevant for just determination of the market value of the land at the time of issuance of the notification in the year 1982. The maximum price in these sale deeds was Rs.52.60 or less than that. However, since the value of the sale deed, according to the copies proved on record by the petitioners, comes to Rs.300/- per square meter, therefore, they are entitled to the said rate accordingly. 21. Coming to the valuation of the debris made or the structures standing over the land, the learned trial Court has referred to the statement of PW-2 Shri H.K.L. Talwar, who prepared the estimates, inspected the buildings - 11 - and assessed the value of the buildings at Rs.9,84,222/-. He denied that the buildings were in dilapidated condition but admitted that there were breaches in the buildings. In the inspection report of the learned Additional District Judge, dated 21.9.1985, he had found that the building to be rotten, in bad condition and accordingly the assessment of Rs.9,84,222/- made by PW-2 HKL Talwar was held by the learned trial Court to be on the higher side and rightly so in view of the discussion made. 22. On the other hand, the respondents had examined Shri C.L. Kapoor, Executive Engineer, as RW-1. The drawings were made by him and it was concluded by the learned trial Court that the assessment of Rs.3,13,588/- made by RW-1 appears to be on lesser side. Accordingly, the learned trial Court had rightly concluded that since the assessment made by the petitioners’ witness was on the higher side and that of the respondents’ witness was on the lower side, 1/3rd of the value should be deducted from the value assessed by the petitioners’ witness PW-2 Shri H.K.L. Talwar and accordingly the value of the building was assessed at Rs.6,56,148/-. The reasoning given and the discussion made does not call for reappraisal of the whole evidence suffice to say that the value assessed by the learned trial Court of the debris of the buildings, as above, can be said to be the most appropriate and it calls for no interference by this court. No infirmity was pointed out in the conclusion so drawn by the learned trial - 12 - Court and I accordingly affirm the value of the debris of the building as assessed by the learned trial Court. 23. No other arguments were advanced in regard to the value of the trees, which value also, as determined by the learned trial Court, does not call for an interference by this Court. 24. In view of the above discussion, it follows that the value of the land per square meter comes to Rs.300/- and accordingly, the appellant/petitioners shall be entitled to the said amount as compensation. 25. As far as the revision petition filed by the petitioners is concerned, the same is allowed to this extent that fresh calculations shall be made by the Land Acquisition Collector in view of the judgment of this Court within a period of four months from today and the amount shall be payable to the petitioners. In case they are not satisfied with the calculations made, they may file the execution petition qua the amount due to them. Accordingly, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. 26. The appeal as well as the revision petition stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. However, there are no orders as to costs. May 14, 2010. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.