IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. RFA No. 269 of 2007 Date of Decision : May 21, 2010 State of H.P. & Ors. …Appellants Versus: Rameshwar Singh …Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellants: Mr. R. M. Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents. Mr. V. D. Khidta, Advocate Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The State has filed this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act assailing the impugned award dated 16.05.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Shimla, Camp at Rohru, in Land Ref. Petition No. 5-R/4 of 2000 titled as Rameshwar Singh vs. State of H.P. & others. 2. For the public purpose, namely, ‘Construction of Rohru-Barara-Karasa road’, the State Govt. issued Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The Collector Land Acquisition issued his award No.22 of 85 dated 29.7.1997. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Aggrieved of the same, claimant filed a land reference petition under Section 18 of the Act. Particulars of his land are as under:- Khasra No. Area Nature 12 0-01-58 Bagicha Bakhal Awal 4. In the claim petition the claimants sought enhancement of the compensation. The claimants also sought compensation towards the trees on the acquired land. 5. Reference petition was opposed by the State. 6. The Court below assessed the market value of the acquired land to be Rs.50,000/- per bigha. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 8. In my considered view there is no scope of interference in the present appeal filed only by the State. Even at the time of hearing of the petition the claimants did not assail the findings of the impugned award. 9. Importantly the transactions entered into by the parties in village Gangtoli were not taken into account by the Court below for the simple reason that there is nothing on record to prove the location of the acquired land with that of the exemplar sale land. Compensation however was determined and enhanced on the basis of the sale transactions placed on record by the respondents. 3 10. While passing the award the Court below has observed as under:- “8. I hardly need to discuss the evidence adduced by the parties, because the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before me copy of award passed by my learned Predecessor in Land Reference Petition No. 25- R/4 of 2004/2000 decided on 31.10.2006. The award pertains to the land acquired for this very road vide the same notification dated 23.05.1996. It is well settled that award of reference court itself furnishes a comparable base for determining the market value. My Learned Predecessor vide the above stated award assessed the compensation of Bagicha Bakhal Awal land at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per bigha. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to compensation for his land at this rate. 9. The petitioner has claimed that 12 of his apple plants were damaged while constructing the road. Assistant Engineer issued him a receipt for the same, which is Ext.PX. The question now is how much compensation the petitioner is entitled to for these 12 apple plants? 10. My. Learned Predecessor, vide his above stated award allowed a compensation of Rs.16,912/- for 37 apple plants. Compensation at the same rate deserves to be allowed to the present petitioner as well. That way the value of 12 plants comes to Rs.5,485/-. 11. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the value of land at Rs.4,505.76, which certainly is less than the market value as assessed above. The petitioner is therefore, entitled to enhancement. Hence, the issue is decided in his favour.” 4 11. From the record it could not be showed as to how the said reasoning adopted by the Addl. District Judge, Shimla, Camp at Rohru, is erroneous, perverse or not borne out from the record. 12. It is a settled position of Law that the claimants are entitled to get compensation for the acquired land which is just, fair and reasonable. Enhancement is also not on the higher side. 13. Even with regard to the fruit bearing trees the compensation assessed is fair and reasonable. The same is based on the material on record. No illegality could be pointed out with respect to the same. Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned award. The appeal filed by the State is consequently dismissed. 14. Needless to add the parties shall be entitled to the benefits of the directions given by the Apex Court in Sunder vs. Union of India {2001(7)SCC 211}. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. May 21, 2010. (rana)