IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RFA No. 481 of 2004 along with RFA Nos.482 & 483 of 2004. Date of Decision: 29.10.2009. State of H.P. and others (in all the cases) ...Appellants. Versus 1.Bhagwan Dass and others in RFA No.481 of 2004 2.Parkash Chand and others in RFA No.482 of 2004 3.Jagjeet Singh and others in RFA No.483 of 2004. ..Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the Appellant(s): Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.G. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. ( oral): All these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since they arise out of the same award passed by learned Addl. District Judge (Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court), Solan on 22.9.2004 in three connected cases being No.35 FT/4 of 2004/2002, 28 FT/4 of 2004/2002 & 32 FT/4 of 2004/2002. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the land sof the respondents situate in mauza Joharpur were acquired by the appellant-State for construction of the Gunai Brotiwala road. A notification under Section 4 was published in the Rajpatra on 13.9.1997 and in the newspaper on 26.8.1997. Award was - 2 - announced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 30.8.1999. The Collector assessed the value of the land at Rs.25454.52 for cultivable land and Rs.1414.14 for uncultivable land. Aggrieved by the said award the respondents herein filed reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 claiming enhancement of the compensation. The learned Reference Court has assessed the compensation at Rs.two lakhs per bigha and held that since the land had been acquired for construction of road the quality of the land is immaterial and entire land was assessed on one basis. The State has now filed these appeals challenging the said awards. I have heard Sh.Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Deputy Advocate General for the Appellant-State and Sh.Rahul Mahajan for the respondents. The first contention raised by Sh.Mandhotra is that the learned Court below has erred in relying upon Ext.P-3 since it relates to Mauja Tipra and according to him the value of the land in Mauja Tipra is much higher than the value of the land in mauja Joharpur . His second contention is that even if this sale deed was to be made the basis for assessment of the value of the land some deduction should have been made keeping in view the fact that the land which was the subject matter of Ext.P-3 was only - 3 - five biswas whereas the land which was acquired was much more i.e. 5.5 bighas. The petitioners before the Court below have proved sale deeds Exts.P-1, P-3 and P-2. Ext.P-1 relates to Joharpur and this sale deed was executed on 3rd March, 1992 whereby three biswas of land was sold for consideration of Rs.21,000/- meaning thereby the per bigha rate was Rs.1,40,000/-. Sale deed Ext.P-3 was executed on 20.5.1997 whereby five biswas of land was sold for a consideration of Rs.50,000/- in mauja Tipra and the valuation per bigha comes to Rs.two lakhs. Ext.P-2 is a sale deed relating to 2-15 bighas at mauza Joharpur wherein the value of the land works out to Rs.65,000/- per bigha. The learned Court below has basically relied upon Ext.P-3 since it was the nearest in time to the notification. The notification under Section 4 as mentioned above was issued on 26.8.1997 and the sale deed Ext.P-3 was executed on 20.5.1997. This was the most proximate in time and the learned Court below, in my opinion, was right in placing reliance on this document and assessing the compensation on the basis of this document. Having said so the question that arises is whether some deduction should have been made keeping in view the fact that the land forming subject matter of the sale deed was only 5 biswas. - 4 - Sh.Rajesh Mandhotra has drawn my attention to the judgment of the Apex court in Shaji Kuriakose and another vs. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. and others, (2001) 7 SCC 650 wherein the Apex Court held that when the sale deeds relied upon relates a small piece of land the same does not reflect the true market value of the acquired land. It is often seen that a sale for a smaller plot of land fetches more consideration than a larger or bigger piece of land and for this reason some deductions have to be made. Sh.Mandhotra has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Land Acquisition Officer, Kammarapally Village, Nizamabad District, A.P. vs. Nookala Rajamallu and others, (2003) 12 SCC 334 wherein the principles for fixation of market value have been laid down and it has been held as follows: “7. It cannot, however, be laid down as an absolute proposition that the rates fixed for the small plots cannot be the basis for fixation of the rate. For example, where there is no other material it may in appropriate cases be open to the adjudicating Court to make comparison of the prices paid for small plots of land. However, in such cases necessary deductions/adjustments have to be made while determining the prices.” On the other hand, Sh.Rahul Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Nelson Fernandes and others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and others, (2007) 9 SCC 447, wherein the Apex court held that in the peculiar facts of the case no deduction should be made since the land in question was - 5 - utilized for construction of railway track. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2008) 2 SCC 568, wherein deduction of only 10% was made from the market value of the land when the land was utilized for construction of the Sugar Factory. There can be no manner of doubt , as laid down by the Apex court, that the sale deed of a small piece of land can be used as a bench mark to assess even the value of a larger piece of land. However, adjustments/deductions have to be made to determine the value of the land. The sale value of a small piece of land may not reflect the true value of a large piece of land since it is a well known fact that when small piece of land is sold on per square metre basis then the consideration is much higher. This can also be due to other variable factors. A large portion of land may include certain portions which are close to the road and certain portion which are away from the road. A large portion may contain various types of land some of which are not of great agricultural value and some of which may have high agricultural value. A small piece of land may not reflect the true market value vis-a-vis a large tract of land. Keeping all these factors into consideration, in the present case, I find that no deduction can be made for development since - 6 - the land was used only for construction of road. The learned Court below has also equated all the different types of land for the purposes of assessing the compensation on the ground that they were being used for construction of the road. Once this has been done some deduction should have been made to compensate for higher price of land which will always be reflected in the sale deed of a small piece of land when compared to the acquisition of a large tract of land. Taking into consideration all these factors, in my opinion, a deduction of 10% would be just and reasonable. The appeals are accordingly partly allowed and the award of the learned Court below is modified to this extent only and the market value of the acquired land is accordingly assessed at Rs.1,82,000/- per bigha instead of Rs.two lakhs per bigha. The claimants shall be entitled to additional compensation, solatium and interest as awarded by the Court below. The Appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. October 29, 2009. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. PV