IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No. 149 of 2007 alongwith Cross-Objections No. 277 of 2007 Date of Decision: 5th May, 2009 Land Acquisition Collector and others Appellants Versus Shri Khem Singh Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellants: Mr.R.K.Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Ankush D.Sood, Addl. Advocate General and Mr.R.P.Singh, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent/: Mr.Rupinder Singh, Advocate. Cross-objector Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The State has filed the appeal and the respondent-claimant has filed cross-objections assailing the award dated 19.3.2007 passed by the District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, in Land Ref. Petition No.14-N/4 of 2003/2002, titled as Khem Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector, and others. For the public purpose, namely, construction of Naina Chhadyar-Naina tikker-Dangyar road, claimant’s land situate in Village Naina-Chhadyar, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmaur, was acquired. It is the claimant’s case that the possession of the land was actually taken over in Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 the year 1970/74 as the road thereupon stood constructed by the State, but, however, the fact of the matter is that Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) acquiring the land was issued by the State Government on 28.12.1994, which was published in the H.P. Rajpatra on 21.1.1995. The Collector, Land Acquisition, passed its award No.14 of 1999 under Section 11 of the Act on 14.10.1999, awarding different rates for different categories of land, details of which are as under:- Sl.No. Classification of land Rate per bigha 1. Kuhal Salana Rs.3,66,667-00 2. Ober Khadi Rs.2,05,333.52 3. Oberg air-Khadi Rs.1,35,666.79 4. Banjar Jadeed Rs. 91,666.75 5. Ghassni Rs. 18,333.35 6. Banjar Kadeem Rs. 29,333.35 7. Na-Kabil Rs.1,833. .34 (sic) Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed Land Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Act. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Court below framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the respondents have awarded inadequate price of the land acquired, if so, what was the price at the time of acquisition. OPP. 2. Whether the possession of the land acquired was taken by the State during 1970, if so, its effect. OPP. Opportunity to lead evidence was afforded to the parties, but, however, it is a matter of record that the claimant alone led oral evidence and examined himself as PW-1 and also Shri Tikka Ram as PW-2. The 3 witnesses proved on record sale deed (Ext.PW-1/A). The respondent did not lead any oral evidence, but, however, tendered copy of sale deed Ext. R-1, which incidentally is the very same document which was proved by the claimant as Ext.PW-1/A. Appreciating the material on record (oral and documentary), the Court found that sale deed (Ext.PW-1/A) pertain to the very same village in which the acquired land is situated. Relying on the statements of PW-1 and PW-2, who sufficiently proved the similarity, potential, use and location of the acquired land with that of the exemplar sale land. The market value of the acquired land was determined to be Rs.1,50,000/- per Bigha and compensation awarded by the Collector was enhanced accordingly. The same was based on the said exemplar sale deed. The claimant’s claim for compensation, prior to the initiation of the acquirement proceedings was rejected, keeping in view the fact that Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued not in the year 1994 and not 1970. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Mr.R.K.Bawa, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, learned Additional Advocate General, has assailed the impugned award on the ground that the compensation awarded is on the higher side. Mr.Rupinder Singh, learned counsel appearing for the claimant has also assailed the award, but on the ground that compensation awarded is on the lower side. 4 Exemplar sale deed Ext.PW-1/A, stands proved by the purchaser of said land Shri Tikka Ram (PW-2). In terms thereof, 2 Biswas of land, situate in Village Naina Chhadyar, itself was sold for a sum of Rs.22,000/- on 7.7.1994. The appellants themselves are relying upon the said sale transaction. No doubt PW-2 has stated that on the said exemplar sale land he has constructed three storeyed house, but, however, he clarified that the exemplar sale land is adjacent to the acquired land. Close by, 18-20 shops are in existence where hotels/Dhabas are being run. He even disclosed the names of the persons who are running the shops and the activities which are being carried out by them. The commercial value has increased considerably as the acquired land is on the junction of Naina Chhadyar-Naina Tikker-Dangyar Road. From his deposition, it is evident that the acquired land is adjacent to the Nahan – Shimla State highway. PW-1 deposed that the possession of the acquired land was taken in the year 1970. He clarified that his land, adjoining to the acquired land is being put to agriculture use by him. The land is irrigated from which he has an income of Rs.50,000/- per month, by sowing vegetables. He clarified that within the vicinity of the acquired land, there are about 15-20 shops where hotels/Dhabas are being run. There are facilities including Senior Secondary School, Office of PWD and dispensary. The acquired land is just at the junction of Nahan-Shimla and Naina Chhadyar-Dangyar roads. Due to construction of road part of his un-acquired land was damaged In cross-examination he clarified that the shops are in existence since the year 1976. As per his deposition the market value of the acquired land is in fact much higher than the exemplar sale deed as various 5 persons have approached him for sale of remaining un-acquired land and have offered him approximately Rs.50,000/- - Rs.60,000/- per Biswa (Rs.10 lacs or 12 lacs per Bigha). He named Mr. Jagdish, who approached him for sale of land. While hearing the other connected appeals arising out of same acquisition proceedings, it was noticed that Shri Yashbir Singh, Patwari, appearing as PW-2 in Land Reference Petition No. 2-N/4 of 2002/01 from which Appeal RFA No. 211 of 2004, titled as State of H.P. vs. Inder Singh, has arisen, has proved on record that the possession for construction of the road in question was actually taken on 2.1.1984, which is evident from letter issued by Executive Engineer (Ext.PW-2/A in that petition). Even the claimant’s statement to the effect that the possession of the acquired land was actually taken over in the year 1970 stands unrebutted. Be that as it may be, the fact of the matter is that the compensation prior to the date of acquisition cannot be awarded in the present proceedings. That the claimant’s unacquired land was damaged could not be sufficiently proved from the record. Except for bald assertion made by the claimant, there is no material to substantiate the same. What is the extent of land and how much damage caused has not been elaborated. Prior to making of statement in the Court on 26.4.2003 or filing of land Reference Petition on 4.7.2002, the claimant did not agitate the issue before any authority. Even according to him, the possession of the land was taken in the year 1970 and the road was constructed some where in the year 1974. Hence, I find no infirmity or illegality in the reasoning adopted and findings 6 returned by the Court below while rejecting the claimant’s contention in this regard. With regard to the market value of the acquired land, both the parties have referred to and relied upon the very same document. Even though both the claimant’s witnesses have deposed that the market value of the acquired land is more than Rs.50,000 - 60,000/- per Biswa, but, however, the reference is with regard to the rates prevalent as on the date of their deposition in the Court. The market value has to be determined as on the date of initiation of acquisition proceedings. The claimant, however, proved on record Ext.PW-1/A. Both the witnesses have proved the location, potential and similarity of the acquired land with that of the land covered by the exemplar sale deed. The Court below, keeping in view the statements of the witnesses has arrived at its conclusion that the said exemplar sale deed can be made basis for determining the market value of the acquired land and determining the compensation payable to the claimant, which is just and fair. No doubt the said exemplar sale deed pertains to two biswas of land, but, however, even the share of claimant in the acquired land is not big enough. No deduction is warranted keeping in view the advantageous locations of the acquired land. The entire land was to be utilized for the public purpose i.e. construction of road, without carrying out any developmental activity. The sale deed is proximate to the time of acquisition proceedings. The Court below, in my considered view, rightly accepted the same and determined the compensation. There is sufficient cogent and reliable material evidence on record to prove the fact that the market value of the acquired land was much 7 more than what was determined by the Collector while passing the award. Incidentally, the Collector’s award does not disclose the basis on which the market value was determined by him. The State also did not place any material on record before the Court below. The Court below, by taking the exemplar sale deed as the basis, has determined the compensation @ Rs.1,50,000/- per Bigha. For the aforesaid reasons, I find that the compensation awarded by the Court below is just, fair and reasonable. The same is based on the material, which has been considered in its entirety. There is no illegality, perversity in the same warranting interference by this Court. The appeal and the cross-objections are accordingly dismissed. In view of the disposal of the main appeal and the cross- objections, learned counsel for the claimant does not press the miscellaneous applications. As such, all the miscellaneous applications are dismissed as not pressed. 5th May, 2009 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.