IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: RFA.No.156/2002. Date of Decision :18th August, 2008 Hoshiar Singh ….Appellant. Versus: Land Acquisition Collector. …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant: Mr. Himat Negi, Advocate vice Mr. B. S. Attri, Advocate. For Respondent. Mr.Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate vice Mr. K. D. Shreedhar, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J.(Oral). The present appeal arises out of the award dated 1.9.2001 passed by the District Judge, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr, in Land Reference Petition No. 49/1998 titled as Hoshiar Singh vs. The Land Acquisition Collector, Nathpa Jhakri Project. The appellant’s land measuring 0-01-66 Hectares including the house situate thereupon comprising Khasra No. 118, was acquired by the State Government for public purpose, namely, setting-up of Nathpa Jhakri Power Project, in terms of Notification dated 5.7.1993 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) (published in 2 H. P. Gazette on 17.7.1993) and award under Section 11 bearing No. 30/94 dated 4.3.1994. Being dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation determined under the award for the acquisition of the house constructed on the land, the petitioner filed a Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Act before the District Judge, Rampur Bushahr. In terms of the award, Rs.1,21,378/- was determined as compensation by the Collector, but in the reference petition, the petitioner claimed Rs.3.50 lacs as compensation for the acquisition of the house. Based on the evidence led by the parties, the Court below came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to any enhancement for the reason that the land owners including the appellant herein had agreed for taking away the structural material and also there was no cogent and reliable evidence necessitating the enhancement of the awarded amount. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the entire record. From the statements of Shri Hoshiar Singh (PW-1) and Shri Tikkam Ram (PW-2), it is evident that the petitioner’s land and the house/superstructure built thereupon stood acquired and being dis-satisfied with the compensation determined under the award, the reference petition in question was filed by the claimant. However, in order to prove the compensation, the claimant examined an Expert Shri Sushil 3 Sharma (PW-3) an Architect and Engineer. From the perusal of his statement, it is clear that prior to the preparation of his valuation report Ext.PW-3/A, this expert had not visited the site and the same was prepared on the basis of the information supplied by the appellant. Importantly, in his cross-examination, he has admitted that “he did not find any infirmity in the valuation report Ext.RX of the NJPC except that premium had not been allowed by the NJPC/Collector Land Acquisition”. From the record, it is evident that while determining the market value of the superstructure, the Collector has considered the HPPWD Schedule of rates applicable for the year 1987, even though the property was acquired in the year 1993. From the award passed by the Collector, as has been noticed by the Court below, it is evident that the land owners including the present claimant had agreed to take away the material of the superstructure and had agreed to deduction of 5% of the total assessed value as per the Schedule of the year 1987. In this view of the matter, the Court below, in my view, has rightly arrived at its conclusion that no enhancement of compensation for acquisition of the land is warranted. In my view, there is no evidence or material on record to show that the value of the superstructure was Rs.3.50 lacs as claimed by the claimant. I may also add that the Court below has rightly held that the compensation for the rental income, business loss etc. 4 cannot be determined for want of any evidence, documentary or oral. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no infirmity, illegality or irregularity in the impugned award and the present appeal is accordingly dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. August 18, 2008 (rana)