IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RFA No. 160 of 2000 along with RFA Nos.165, 166, 168 & 181 of 2000. Date of Decision: 15.10.2009. Land Acquisition Collector and another (in all cases) ...Appellants. Versus 1.Om Parkash and others in RFA No.160 of 2000 2.Devinder Kumar in RFA No.165 of 2000 3.Raj Kumari in RFA No.166 of 2000 4.Ved Ram in RFA No.168 of 2000 5.Ram Dei and another in RFA 181 of 2000 ..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. Sunil Mohan Goel, 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 District Judge, Kullu on 24.3.1999. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the houses of the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the claimants) were acquired for the construction of bye-pass Kullu road (National High Way No.21). A notification under Section 4 was published on 6.5.1989. Thereafter, all the formalities were completed and award was announced. The claimants filed reference petitions - 2 - under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The learned trial Judge discarded the evidence produced by the claimants in support of the valuation of their claims. He accepted the method of valuation of the experts produced by the respondents who had prepared the abstract of cost of houses on the basis of HPPWD schedule of rates prepared in the year 1987. To this extent there is no dispute between the parties. The schedule of rates was prepared in the year 1987 and the acquisition took place about two years later. The Court below enhanced the rates given in the HPPWD schedule of rates by 40%. The State is basically aggrieved by this portion of the order. Sh.Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State contends that there was no material before the Land Reference Judge to fix the enhancement at such a high level. The learned District Judge has given no reason whatsoever for enhancing the amount by 40% only on account of two years difference between the schedule of rates and the acquisition. Sh.Mandhotra submits that keeping in view the inflationary trends some enhancement could have been granted but this would not have been 40%. On the other hand Sh.Sunil Mohan Goel, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants contends that the award is legal and calls for no interference. - 3 - It is well established law that the petitioner in a land acquisition case is like a plaintiff in a civil suit. He has to prove his case. The petitioners’ expert witness also relied on the HPPWD schedule of rates of 1987 but enhanced the same by 200%. There could not have been 100% enhancement per year. This is grossly disproportionate and the learned trial Court was justified in rejecting this increase. Having done so, while assessing the percentage increase some method should have been followed by the District Judge. It is true that there may be some element of conjecture and calculated guess work involved but there cannot be arbitrary figure of enhancement. The District Judge gave no reasons to fix 40% enhancement. He could have easily picked the figure of 60% or 20%. The Apex Court in case General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and another, 2008 (11) Scale 637, has held that the Court is justified to give increase from 10% to 15% per annum in urban areas. In the present case the area in question is adjacent to Bhuntar and is an urban area. I had asked the parties to produce the consumer price index for the relevant period. On going through the consumer price index, I find that from the date between the preparation of HPPWD schedule of rates of 1997 and the notification under Section 4 there was about 22.5% increase in the consumer price - 4 - index. Keeping in view the increase in the rates as mentioned in the consumer price index as well as the judgment of the Apex Court in ONGC case (supra), I feel that the enhancement over the HPPWD schedule of rates should have been 30% over a period of two and a half years. All the Appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms and it is directed that the value of the houses shall be assessed by adding 30% to the value of the houses as assessed by the Collector. In addition thereto the claimants shall be entitled to solatium, additional compensation and interest as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. No order as to costs. October 15, 2009. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. PV