IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No. 220 of 2004 Reserved on: 29th September, 2008 Date of Decision: 13th October, 2008 Mansha Ram Appellant Versus State of H.P. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. Advocate General. Sanjay Karol, J. In terms of the impugned judgment dated 15.5.2004, the District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. has dismissed the Land Reference Petition No.07 of 2002 titled as Mansha Ram vs. State of H.P. Hence the appeal by the claimant. For the public purpose, namely, construction of Nadaun- Bangana road, appellant’s land comprised in Khasra No.115, measuring 0- 01-94 Hects. in Tika Ghalol, H.P. was acquired in terms of Notification dated 10.4.1996 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), published in State Gazette on 27.4.1996 and the Collector in terms of his award No.28 dated 22.9.98 awarded total Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 compensation of Rs.1,24,394/- determining the market value of the acquired land to be Rs.500 per Marla. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed Land Reference Petition No.07 of 2002 claiming enhancement of compensation @ Rs.1 lac per Marla. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the market value of the acquired lad allegedly being inadequate and insufficient deserves to be redetermined, if so, to what extent? OPP 2. Relief. After appreciating the ratio of law laid down by various Courts in State of Punjab and another vs. Hans Raj and others, 1994 (4) S.L.J.3347, Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitroi and others vs. State of Gujrat, AIR 1989 SC 2051, Union of Inida vs. Paras Ram etc., 1979 I.L.R. (HP) 305, State of Uttar Pradesh and another vs. Rajendra Singh, (1996) 7 SCC 347, Kanwar Singh vs. Union of India, (1998) 8 SCC 136, Parmeshwari Devi vs. P.S.E.B., AIR 1994 SC 1142, Shaji Kuriakose vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2001) 7 SCC 650, State of Haryana vs. Ram Singh, AIR 2001 SC 2532, Hookiyar Singh vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Muradabad and another, AIR 1996 SC 3207, as also the material on record (oral and documentary) the District Judge dismissed the Land Refence Petition for the reason that the claimant had failed to prove his case. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 3 Claimant examined himself as PW-1 and also examined Shri Dharamvir (PW-2) and Jolly Ram (PW-3). All the three witnesses have deposed that after acquisition, on the acquired land Bus Stand has been constructed and the thereafter rates of the properties have risen considerably and as on the date of recording of the statement in the Court, the market value was Rs.1 lac. Statements of the witnesses were recorded in the Court in the year 2003, whereas the land was acquired in the year 1996. Except for the aforesaid oral testimony, there is nothing on record to prove the market value of the acquired land as on the date of the acquisition. The respondent has examined Shri Ashwani Kumar (RW-1), Shri Sultan Singh (RW-2), Shri Ashok Kumar (RW-3) and has proved on record the sale deeds Ext.RW-1/A, Ext.RW-1/B. In terms of the said sale deeds, the market value of the land in the year 1995 was approximately Rs.400 per Marla. No doubt these witnesses have also deposed that a Bus Stand has been constructed on the acquired land and the land prices have risen due to commercial activity, but, however, even from their statements it could not be proved that the market value of the acquired land was more than what was awarded by the Collector. In my view, the Court below has correctly appreciated the material on record in its entirety and I see no illegality or perversity in the same. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 13th October, 2008 (Sanjay Karol), (C) Judge.