HIGH COURT OF UTTARANKHAND AT NAINITAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 56/2003 Sri Shiv Dayal (since deceased) substituted by Harsh Lal Bahuguna ….. Claimant-Appellant Vs. State of Uttaranchal and another …Defendant-Respondents 2.4.2008 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Shri Vipul Painuly, counsel for the appellants, Shri U.K. Uniyal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Shobhit Saharia, counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Shri R.C. Arya, counsel for the respondent no. 2. 2. By the present appeal filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the order dated 4.5.2002 passed by the District Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Land Acquisition Reference No. 7 of 1996 by which the award 3.8.1995 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer has been confirmed. 3. Briefly stated, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued by the State of U.P. for the Tehri Dam purposes. A perusal of the award shows that the land was acquired on 4.8.1995 in pursuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land acquisition Act on 12.8.1991. Thereafter, the same was followed by another notification under section 6 on 31.03.1993 and the compensation was calculated to the extent of Rs. 1,39,31,857.06 including the rate of house, land and trees, 30% solatium and interest to the extent of 12 per cent. 4. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant has preferred a reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on the ground that while awarding the compensation, the Government Orders and provisions of the Act have been ignored and the rate of the land has been fixed on the basis of sale-deed of lowest value and further deducation of 25% has been made form the rate fixed. It has been alleged that the sale deeds of village Mail Deval and Chaksaur have not been taken into consideration through the said villages are adjacent to the village in question. It has been stated that 15 nali 11 muthi land has been found partly Avval and partly Doyam while this was irrigated land. A sum of Rs. 72,000/- per nali for his irrigation land, Rs. 36,000/- per nali for Avval land and Rs. 24,000/- per nali for Doyam land with solatium and additional compensation at the rate of 12 per cent. The claimants have claimed Rs. 5,00,000/- as being prevented form his easementary rights and Rs. 2,00,000/- for change of residence. 5. The opposite parties have filed the separate written statement and have stated that the market value of the land of the claimant has been fixed in accordance with the direction issued by the government from time to time. So far as plot nos. 146, 147, 148 measuring 13 nali 9 muthi and plot nos. 151, 152, 153 area 2 nali 6 muthi as irrigated land are concerned, these two sets of fields have been recorded in revenue records as Avval and Doyam types respectively. The claimant is not entitled to any additional or enhanced compensation on that account and the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the reference court has framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the compensation awarded to the claimant is colourable and inadequate? If so, its effect? 2. Any other relief to which the claimant is entitled in the present case? 7. The petitioner has examined P.W. 1 Harsh Lal, P.W.2 Ganga Prasad Petwal, P.W.3 Buddhi Singh son of Amar Singh and P.W.4 Buddhi Singh S/o Girvar Singh. The defendants has examined Bachan Singh Negi as D.W.1. 8. The claimant has produced 4 documents as per list 24 Ga/1 and 4 documents as per list 19 Ga/1. the defendants have filed 3 papers as per list 59 Ga. 9. While deciding at to whether the compensation awarded to the claimant is colourable and inadequate, the reference court has placed reliance on the sale deed dated 16.7.1990 which is only for a small piece of land measuring 6 muthi which has been soled on Rs. 9,000/- by one Shri Govind Singh Rana. This land is located in village Maldeval. The other sale deed executed by one Ram Singh on 29.08.1990 selling 3 nali 12 muthi land on a sum of Rs. 90,000/-. Both these lands are Doyam and the rate comes to Rs. 24,000/- per nali and, therefore, the reference court has distinguished these sale deeds and the rate of Rs. 24,000/- per nali has not been taken into considereation. Reliance has also been placed on paper no. 29 ga/1 stating therein that his 15 nali 15 muthi land of these plots was converted into irrigated land. But on the officer report, the land comprising of plot nos. 146, 147 and 148 measuring 10 nali 4 muthi has been converted into irrigated land as per the enquiry of the Naib Tehsildar. Paper no. 30 ga which is copy of the Khasra partali filed by the petitioner shows that an area of 0.319 hectare of the above six plots in question was irrigated. Finding has been recorded that this khasra partali was not acted upon the record of khasra fasli 1401 to 1406 and these were not corrected accordingly. Reliance has also been placed on the statement of Harsh Lal that only plot no. 147 and 148 were talau (irrigated) as against the 6 plots claimed and he has made an application on 20.6.1996 about the talau status of the alleged plots. The reference court has, therefore, recorded the finding that the claim of the petitioner for being paid for at the rate of irrigated/talau in respect of plots in question has no force. 10. So far as the other relief is concerned, the reference court has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards expenses incurred on shifting of residence. 11. On the basis of the aforesaid, the reference court has enhanced the compensation to the extent of Rs. 10,000/-. 12. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that this conversion of talau (irrigated) relates to the post land acquisition proceedings and, therefore, it has no value for the purposes of compensation at present. 13. Similarly, counsel for the respondents has referred the statement of P.W.3 Buddhi Singh who has sold 6 muthi land on the basis of which the petitioner has claimed the higher rate. Similarly P.W.4 Buddhi Singh could not said about the rate of Avval and Doyal land in his village and, as such, the reference court has recorded the finding that the exemplars of 1990 which were taken into consideration require no interference. 14. Counsel for the appeal has stated that 35,00,000/- has been paid in the year 1995 and he was also allotted 10 bighas plots at concessional rate but he did not chose to take it. 15. As will appear from the reference court that the appellant was awarded the compensation as well as the land on concessional rate, therefore, the authorities concerned shall consider the allotment of land to the appellant as observed by the reference court. Liberty is given to the appellant to approach the authority concerned who shall consider the feasibility of giving the land as will appear from the order passed. 16. Subject to the observations made above, liberty is given to the appellant to approach the authority concerned in respect of the land which was offered at concessional rate, appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 2.4.2008 Avneet