IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA No. 61 of 2004 Decided on: 02.03.2010 RFA No. 61 of 2004 Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation Ltd. and another …Appellants. Versus Smt. Vijay Shukla and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting? For the appellants: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For respondent No.1: Name of respondent No.1 Smt. Champa Shukla (since deceased) stands deleted. For respondents No.2 to 20: Mr. M.S. Thakur, Advocate. For respondent No. 21 : Mr. R. P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) In terms of the previous order dated 29.12.2009, talks for out of court settlement between the parties were in progress. It was in such circumstances that the present appeal was ordered to be listed in the first week of March, 2010, as prayed for. The matter has come up for final hearing today. Heard. A large extent of land measuring 0-57-17 hects. denoted by Khasra Nos. 576/1 and 583/1, situate in Up-mohal (Revenue Village) Lahasa, Tehsil Rampur Bushahr, Distt. Shimla, was acquired for a public purpose, namely, ‘construction of bridge over Satluj river bye-pass road for Nathpa Jhakari Hydel Project’. Whereas land bearing khasra No. 576/1, measuring ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 0-06-96 hects. was classified as ‘Bagicha Bakhal Awal Faldar’ and that of khasra No. 583/1, measuring 0-50-21 hects. as ‘Bakhal Awal’. On consideration of the matter the Collector, Land Acquisition, assessed market value of the acquired land as under:- Classification of land Rate per biswa Bakhal Aabal Rs. 11,902.44 Krali Doem and Gair Mumkin Rs. 1,487.80 On its basis compensation to the tune of Rs. 27,80,994.46, was awarded to the claimant being the person interested, who has since died and is now represented by his legal representatives. Not being satisfied with the award of the Collector, the claimant applied for making reference to the court. On reference, the court below after taking into consideration the evidence led on behalf of the parties assessed market value of the acquired land primarily on the basis of sale instance Ex.PW- 1/B, whereby, land measuring 97-50 sq. mts. denoted by Khasra No. 191/1, situate in Kaswa Bazar Rampur Bushahr, Tehsil Rampur, Distt. Shimla, was soled for a sum of Rs. One lakh. By way of this sale deed land measuring approximately 2 ½ biswas was sold for Rs. One lakh. It being so, rate per bigha comes to Rs. 40,000-00 approximately. It has come in the evidence that the acquired land is situate at a distance of about one KM from the land involved in sale instance Ex.PW-1/B. Both the lands are more or less of the same quality. However, two factors shall have to be taken into account while fixing market value of the acquired land on the basis of sale instance Ex.PW-1/B. Firstly, that the land sold vide 3 sale deed Ex.PW-1/B is a small extent measuring 97.50 sq. mts. or say about 2 ½ biswa, the land forming part of the acquisition proceedings in the present case is measuring 0-57-17 hects. i.e 7 ½ bigha approximately. It is by now settled that the rates fetched by small plots can be taken into consideration while fixing market value of large extents after giving discount for smallness of the plot vis-a-vis the large extent acquired. The rational behind doing so is that it is easy to get purchasers for small plots of land even at higher rates, but it is not so in case of large extents. Another factor that should be taken into consideration while fixing the market value of the acquired land is development charges involved. It goes without saying that in the present case no development charges were involved except the expenditure to be incurred on the construction of road itself. Though the parties as represented by the learned counsel are in agreement at the bar that some discount ought to have been given by the reference court while assessing the market value of the acquired land vis-a-vis sole sale instance Ex.PW- 1/B, yet they are at quite variance in so far as to what extent of discount is to be applied. According to the claimant, reasonable percentage of discount should be between 15 to 20 %. Conversely it is contended on behalf of the appellants by placing reliance on Gafar and Others Vs Moradabad Development Authority and another 2007 (7) SCC 614, Basvva (Smt.) and others Vs. Spl. Land Acquisition officer and others 1996 (9) SCC 640, Land Acquisition Officer Revenue Divisional Officer Chittor Vs. L Kamalamma (Smt.) Dead by Lrs. And others K Krishnamachari and others 1998 (2) SCC 385, Bhim Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and another 2003 (10) SCC 529, Land Acquisition 4 Officer, Kammarapally Village, Nizamabad District, A.P. Vs. Nookala Rajamallu and others 2003 (12) SCC 334 and Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Puran Ram 2009 (1) SLJ 312, that it should vary between 40 to 60%. Per contra the learned counsel for the claimants has relied upon Atma Singh (Dead) through LRS and others Vs. State of Harayana and another (2008) 2 SCC 568, where discount to the extent of 10% has been given. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions put forth on behalf of the parties. To strike a balance, to my mind, the law laid down on the point by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Charan Dass (dead) by LRs Vs Himachal Pradesh housing and Urban Development Authority & others, 2010 (1) Him.L.R. (SC) 145, can very well be applied in the facts and t circumstances of the present case. In the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the acquisition was pertaining to construction of Housing Board Colony at Shoghi, Distt. Shimla, in which discount to the extent of 30% has been applied while assessing market value of the acquired land vis-a-vis the sale instances pertaining to small plots of land. It shall be pertinent to notice here that the acquisition in the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was for construction of Housing Board Colony, in which though it was found that the acquired area was already in the vicinity of developed area, yet some developmental charges were involved to bring the acquired land to the required standard so as to construct Housing Board Colony thereon. But, in the present case, as already observed, the acquisition was for construction of bridge for a road and no developmental charges were involved except that expenditure was to be incurred on construction of the bridge itself. 5 Against the above backdrop, I am satisfied that it shall not be unsafe to give discount to the extent of 20% while assessing the market value of the acquired land in the present case on the basis of above principle of law, for evaluating the market value of large extent of acquired land vis-a-vis sale instance (Ex.PW-1/B) pertaining to small extent of land. Further more, application of discount to the extent of 20% would also be justifiable taking into consideration the fact that whereas land sold vide sale deed Ex.PW-1/B is situate in Kaswa Bazar Rampur Bushahr, Tehsil Rampur, Distt. Shimla, the acquired land though situate in the same area is at a distance of about one KM. By giving discount to the extent of 20%, the market value of the acquired land would come to Rs.32,000.00 per biswa i.e Rs. 40,000.00 less 20%. In view of the above, the claimants would be entitled for payment of compensation in respect of the acquired land @ Rs. 32,000-00 per biswa. Apart from it they shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Act on the amount of compensation as assessed herein. Consequently, the appeal succeeds partly and is accordingly allowed in part. The impugned award, in so far as the same relates to fixation of market value of the acquired land shall stand modified accordingly. The parties shall bear their own costs. The appeal stand disposed of in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. 2nd March, 2010. Lsp* 6