IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. RFA No.187/2007 along with RFA Nos. 188/2007,189/200, 190/2007, 192/2007 & 193/2007. Date of Decision : January 4, 2008 RFA 187/2007 State of H.P. & others …Appellants. Versus: Amar Singh …Respondent. RFA 188/2007 State of H.P. & others …Appellants. Versus: Chander Mohan …Respondent. RFA 189/2007 State of H.P. & others …Appellants. Versus: Prem Singh …Respondent. RFA 190/2007 State of H.P. & others …Appellants. Versus: Balbir Singh …Respondent. RFA 192/2007 State of H.P. & others …Appellants. Versus: Mahesh Kumar …Respondent. RFA 193/2007 State of H.P. & others …Appellants. Versus: Mast Ram …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellants: Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Addl. A.G. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 For the respondent(s). Mr. Rupinder Singh, Advocate. (in all the RFAs) Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral). The present appeals, with the consent of the parties, are being decided at the stage of admission. These appeals arise out of the common award dated 19th March, 2007 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. in the following Land Reference Petitions:- 1. Land Ref. Pet. No. 09-N/4 of 2002, titled as Amar Singh v. State of H.P. & others, 2. Land Ref. Pet. No. 10-N/4 of 2002, titled as Chander Mohan & Others v. State of H.P. & others, 3. Land Ref. Pet. No. 11-N/4 of 2002, titled as Prem Singh v. State of H.P. & others, 4. Land Ref. Pet. No. 12-N/4 of 2002, titled as Balbir Singh v. State of H.P. & others, 5. Land Ref. Pet. No. 13-N/4 of 2002, titled as Madan Singh & Others v. State of H.P. & others, 6. Land Ref. Pet. No. 14-N/4 of 2002, titled as Mahesh Kumar & Others v. State of H.P. & others, 7. Land Ref. Pet. No. 15-N/4 of 2002, titled as Mast Ram v. State of H.P. & others; 8. Land Ref. Pet. No. 16-N/4 of 2002, titled as Mangi Devi & Others v. State of H.P. & others. The same are, therefore, decided by a common judgment. For the purposes of construction of Madi-Ka-Ghat, Dinger Kinner-Mathanan road in village Khaska-Dinger, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmaur, H.P., the land belonging to various land owners, including the present respondents was acquired vide notification dated 8.9.1998, issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 3 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The said Notification was published in the H. P. Rajpatra on 12.10.1998. The acquisition proceedings were concluded by passing of the award No. 4 of 2001, dated 5.10.2001. The admitted case of the parties is that the possession of land in question was taken prior to the publication of the aforesaid notification. The respondents/ claimants’ claim that the road was constructed in the year 1972 when the possession of their land was taken. This fact, however, is disputed by the State. Be that as it may be, the fact of the matter is that the notification issued u/s 4 of the Act was published on 12.10.1998. The Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land and awarded compensation at different rates for different categories of land as under:- Sr. No. Classification of land Rate per bigha 1 Ober Khati Rs.24,375/- 2. Banjar Kadim Rs.2,250/- 3. Ghasni Rs.2,250/- 4. Nakabil Rs. 500/- Aggrieved by the same, the claimants preferred Reference Petitions u/s 18 of the Act which stand decided in terms of the impugned award and the market value determined was Rs.one lac per bigha to be uniformly applied regardless of the category and classification of the land. I have perused the record and heard the parties. 4 In support of the claim, the claimants examined three witnesses. Shri Yash Pal (PW-1), Shri Satya Pal (PW-2) and Shri N. K. Gupta (PW-3). The claimants have proved the award dated 9.3.1998 (Ext.PW-1/B) passed by the Addl. District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. in Land Reference No. 1-N/4 of 1995. The same pertains to the acquisition of the land of an adjoining village and for the very same purpose for which the land in question was acquired. The acquisition proceedings were initiated vide notifications published in H. P. Rajpatra on 25.9.1982 and 1.10.1983. As per the said award, the land owners were uniformly awarded compensation @ Rs.13,000/- per bigha. Further, copies of the sale deed dated 5.10.1995 Ext.PW- 1/C and 24.4.1996 Ext.PW-1/D have been duly proved and exhibited by the claimants. The said sale deeds, being two years prior to the date of acquisition were rightly not considered by the trial Court. The claimants have further proved sale deed dated 9.6.1997 (Ext. PW-1/E) and in terms thereof, one biswa of land was sold for a consideration of Rs.5,000/-. This sale is closest to the time of acquisition proceedings. The respondent-State has not led any evidence except for tendering a copy of the sale deed dated 21.9.1998 (Ext.R-1). The same pertains to sale of two biswas of land for a consideration of Rs. One lac. PW-1 has deposed that the acquired land is similarly situated with that of the land in village Jarag Khareti, Tehsil 5 Pachhad and the value of their land, on the basis of Ext.PW-1/B, Ext.PW-1/C, Ext.PW-1/D & Ext.PW-1/E, cannot be less than Rs. Two lacs per bigha. PW-2 has also deposed to the said effect and has further proved that the acquired land is similar to that of the land of Jarag khareti which is adjoining to their land and their land is fertile, irrigated and they have been sowing the crop of peas, tomatos, cauli-flower, ginger etc. According to both these witnesses due to the construction of the road, their remaining land has been rendered useless. PW-3, a former employee of the State has proved that the possession of the land was actually taken on 1.4.1972. With this evidence on record, in my view, it cannot be said that the award passed by the Collector is on the higher side or there is any error in the passing of the impugned award. It has been proved on record that the boundaries of the claimants village, namely; Khaska-Dinger and village Jarag- khareti are adjoining. It has also been proved that the claimants land is fertile and is irrigated and has been used for agricultural/cash crop purposes. Award Ext.PW-1/B attained finality is not disputed. As per this award, for the acquisition proceedings initiated in the year 1982-83, the rates for acquisition of the land in village Jarag Khareti and that too for the very same purpose was determined and compensation paid @ Rs.13,000/- per bigha regardless of the category or classification of the land. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the property prices since the year 1983, has risen considerably. Through sale deed 6 Ext.PW-1/E, it stands proved that the market value of the similarly situated land was Rs.5000/- per biswa. One bigha has 20 biswas, therefore, @ Rs.5,000/- per biswa, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs.one lac per bigha. The potentiality and the similarity of the lands stand proved. Sale deed Ext.R-1 cannot be relied upon to determine the market value of the land for the simple reason that it was a distress sale and only one hundredth of the share in the land in village Jarag Khareti was sold by the vendor in the year 1996 though the sale deed was executed in the year 1998. Further, there is no evidence of similarity and potentiality between the acquired land and the land covered by the sale deed Ext.PW-1/E. In my view, the Collector has correctly awarded the compensation uniformly regardless of the classification and category of the land keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in Bhagwathula Samanna & Others v. Special Tehsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality (AIR 1992 SC 2298) and Gulabi etc.v. State of H.P. (AIR 1998 HP 9). The Court below, in my view, therefore, correctly determined the market value of the acquired land and determined compensation to be paid to the land owners for the same. This is the consideration which the claimants would have got had they sold their land in the open market. . For all the aforesaid reasons, I see no infirmity, perversity, or illegality in the impugned award and the present appeals are accordingly dismissed. 7 Pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. January 4, 2008. (rana)