IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RFAs No.62, 63, 65 and 66 of 2002. Date of decision: 17.11.2009. 1. RFA No.62 of 2002. LAC, HPPWD, Kullu & Others ….Appellants Versus Uttam Ram ….Respondent 2. RFA No.63 of 2002. LAC, HPPWD, Kullu & Others ….Appellants Versus Sita Devi ….Respondent 3. RFA No.65 of 2002. LAC, HPPWD, Kullu & Others ….Appellants Versus Aatu @ Aatu Ram ….Respondent 4. RFA No.66 of 2002. LAC, HPPWD, Kullu & Others ….Appellants Versus Kala Devi ….Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellants: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent(s):Mr.Naveen Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. All these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as the lands of the claimants were acquired by the same Notification under the Land 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and the purpose of acquisition is also the same. The reference petitions were consolidated and tried by the learned District Judge on common evidence as led in all the petitions. The purpose for acquisition was for construction of Manali-Kanyal road. Being dis-satisfied with the award made by the Land Acquisition Collector, the respondents-claimants filed petition under Section 18 of the Act. The learned Reference Court settled eight issues on the pleadings of the parties. The basic grievance of the respondent- claimant was that the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was not inconsonance with the principles of Section 23(1-A) of the Act, the fruit bearing orchard standing on the acquired land was not properly valued, danga, supporting walls, had not been considered while working out the compensation payable, interest and solatium had not been paid, damage had been caused to the land of the respondents- claimants by dumping the debris on the land of the petitioners. Five witnesses were examined by the respondents-claimants in support of the claim. Only one witness was examined on behalf of the respondent to prove on record Ex.RW-1/A, the sale deed purportedly depicting the true price of the land while Ex.RA was a sale deed was tendered in evidence and Ex.RB, copy of the jamabandi. The learned Reference Court, relying 3 upon the evidence of PW-2 Ravi Chand, PW-3 Lal Chand, PW-4, Kunj Lal and PW-5 Man Mohan, who proved on record Ex.PW-2/B, Ex.PW-3/B, Ex.PW-4/B and Ex.PW-5/B, being sale deeds of land, fixed the fair compensation for the land. The learned Court has tabulated the value of the land:- Vendor/vendee Land sold in Bighas Sale deed & date Value Jamabandi PW-2 Ravi Chand 0-11-0 Ex.PW-2/A dt.29.9.87 Rs.3 lac Ex.PW-2/B PW-3 Lal Chand 0-2-0 Ex.PW-3/A dt.26.4.91 Rs.1½ lac Ex.PW-3/B PW-4 Kunj Lal 1-10-0 Ex.PW-4/A dt.5.6.91 Rs.6 lac Ex.PW-4/B PW-5 Manmohan (grandson of vendee) 1-13-0 Ex.PW-5/A dt.8.2.91 Rs.14,52,000/- Ex.PW-5/B In addition, the learned Court placed reliance on the award of the Collector Ex.PJ fixing the value of the land for construction of Dhungri-Nasogi Raod at Rs.1,40,000/- per bigha. The Court arrived at the conclusion that the average sale price of the land was Rs.41,568/- per biswa or Rs.8,31,360/- per bigha and proceeded to deduct 40% from the value of this average price fixing at Rs.29,941/- per biswas or Rs.4,98,820/- per bigha. The deduction was made to give allowance to the size of the acquired holdings which were classified as small by the Court below. 4 Learned Advocate General submits that the value which has been fixed is very high and is contrary to that which is proved on record vide Ex.RW-1/A. This submission cannot be accepted. Smt. Ijatu Devi wife of Shri Dot Ram proved on record this sale deed Ex.RW-1/A, dated 4.11.1991 and Jamabandi Ex.RW-1/B. She stated that she had sold the land for Rs.25,000/- and according to her, sale transaction was of her own free will. However, in cross-examination she stated that she was ill and therefore, she had sold the land at a cheap price. She is categoric in her statement while she says, “Main bimar thi isliye maine jamin saste mein bechi kyonki mughe paison ki jarurat thi … …”. She further states that the value of the land was not less than Rs.27,00/- per biswa. This can hardly be classified as a sale transaction to fix the true and correct value of the acquired land. It is but obvious that this witness has sold this land in distress because she was ill and required money. Even otherwise if this evidence is accepted, it says that the value of the land was Rs.27,000/- per biswa which is higher than Rs.24,921/- as fixed by the learned reference Court. Ex.RA has also been tendered in evidence as an instance of sale transaction. It is not clear nor is there any evidence on record whether this land is same and similar in quality to those as given in Ex.PW-2/A, Ex.PW-3/A, Ex.PW-4/A and Ex.PW-5/A. 5 The learned reference Court also placed reliance on the award Ex.PL which was an award made in the year 1993 wherein Rs.2,20,000/- per bigha was determined by the Collector as the value of the acquired land. The learned Court holds that taking into consideration the factor of inflation, as held by the Supreme Court in Gokul vs. State of Haryana AIR 1992 SC 150, 15% increase per annum can be applied to the value of that land and in this event also the value would workout to Rs.4,64,000/- per bigha. In a nutshell, the learned reference Court based its assessment on the sale deeds produced and proved on the record in addition to the awards as noticed. The value has been worked out accordingly and deduction of 40% has been made. Considered in its totality, I do not find any merit in the submissions made by the learned Advocate General that the award is not based on sound principles of law. I need not reiterate here that average price calculated on the basis of sale transaction can form the basis/index to calculate the just compensation. Viewed from any angle, the value of the land has been rightly fixed by the learned Court below. These appeals are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. All miscellaneous applications shall stand disposed and all interim orders are vacated. November 17, 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.