IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No. 4 of 2008 Date of Decision : 26.08.2008 __________________________________________________________ H.P. University, Shimla ….Appellants. Versus Birender Pal Singh & others ….Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 __________________________________________________________ For the Appellant: Shri B.C. Negi, Advocate. For the Respondent No.1& 2: Shri Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent No.3: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. This case has a chequered history. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as Act) was issued in the year 1972. Award by the Collector was made on 19.7.1973. The reference petition instituted by the claimants/respondents was dismissed in 1980 and in a Special Leave Petition instituted before the Supreme Court the matter was again remanded in 1996. The reference was thereafter answered in favour of the claimants in 1998. RFA Nos.131 of 1998 and 295 of 1998 were preferred by the claimants and the Himachal Pradesh University against the award. The claimants 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 prayed for enhancement and the University prayed for setting aside the reference as it had not been impleaded as a party in the reference petition and its rights had been adversely effected. Vide judgment dated 20.6.2007 this Court allowed the appeal preferred by the University and remanded the case to the Reference Court directing that matter be disposed of expediously, as a period of more than 33 years had elapsed since proceedings under Section 4 of the Act had first been instituted. Learned Reference Court vide its judgment dated 6.12.2007 has decided the petition in favour of the claimants after considering the totality of the evidence brought on record. The evidence consisted of PW1 Shri Surat Ram Mahtan who stated in his evidence that he has visited the acquired land on 24th August, 1977 and at the relevant time, the land was easily approachable by a motorable road from Summer Hill Post office. After considering the sale instances of the surrounding areas, he could come across only one instance of sale wherein 400 Square yards was sold at Rs. 13,000/-. PW2 Jagjit Singh, the predecessor in interest of the petitioner has stated that acquired land was situated at a walking distance of five minutes from the Summer Hill post office. He has stated that he had purchased this land about ten years prior to the acquisition at the cost of Rs. 5000/- to 10,000/-. He used to reside in the acquired building and had incurred considerable expenditure on transportation of the luggage household articles etc. PW4 Surjit Singh proved Ext.PW4/A and Ext.PW4/B and stated that acquired land is suitable for construction of residential buildings etc. and there is a link road which branches off from the land of Municipal Corporation road leading to the acquired estate. According to him, 90% of the area is developed and leveled. After remand, appellant herein examined two witnesses namely RW1 Durga Singh who has tendered the copy of jamabandi for the year 1973-74 Ext.RW1/A. RW2 Vinod Kumar, Executive Engineer, H.P. University has stated 3 that he has supervised the construction of the university building. He has stated that the acquired land required considerable development to render it fit for use and report Ext.RW2/A was prepared by him. He states that the acquired land is at a distance of one kilometer from the main road. However, in his cross- examination, he admits that University was established in the year 1970 but could not say that the acquired land was taken for the construction of residential buildings etc. for the university staff. He further tries to establish that considerable expenditure was incurred by the University for developing the land. At this juncture, it may be observed that the University has not placed on record any material to show the quantum of expenses required for development. Obviously, this record was in the care and custody of respondents and has not been produced for reasons best known to it. This despite the fact that the matter was remanded at a very late stage and opportunity granted to the appellant to lead evidence. On the evidence on record, the learned Reference Court holds that the acquired property was situated within the municipal limits of the Municipal Corporation, Shimla which fact stands proved by the water bills Ext.PW4/Q/1 to Ext.PW4/Q/11, electricity bills Ext.PW4/R/1 to Ext.PW4/R/23 and receipts Ext.PW4/S/1 to Ext.PW4/S/19 which have been proved. Building plans and maps of the petitioners Ext.PW4/G, Ext.PW4/H, Ext. PT and sanctions Ext.PW4/J, Ext.PW4/K and Ext.PW4/L passed by the Municipal Corporation and Town and Country Planning Department. All these clearly establish that the land and building was within the Shimla Municipal Corporation limits. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has urged that the award is excessive as the area required considerable amount of expenditure for development. This contention cannot be accepted. RW2 who is Junior Engineer has not proved this fact from the record. The University was in possession of the records relating to the amount spent on development, if any, which records have 4 not been produced. In this event, it cannot be said that learned District Judge has erred in holding that considerable amount of expenditure was required to be incurred. Second contention is that Ext.RW1/A jamabandi is an official document to which the presumption of truth has to be attached and it shows that acquired land is not within the municipal limits of Shimla. This arguments is to be rejected straight away as I have held that electricity, water bills and sanctioning of the building plans for addition or alteration etc. of the Municipal Corporation, Shimla have already been placed on record. On the question of judgment Ext.PW4/C which formed the basis for the award, all that need be said is that evidence clearly established that the property subjected matter of this judgment was adjoining the acquired estate and using this as a supportive basis cannot be faulted with. In these facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. August 26,2008 (Dev Darshan Sud), (ms) Judge