IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No. 337 of 2004 alongwith Cross Objections No. 353 of 2004, RFA No.211 of 2004 alongwith Cross Objections No. 389 of 2004 RFA No.212 of 2004 alongwith Cross Objections No. 390 of 2004 RFA No.213 of 2004 alongwith Cross Objections No. 391 of 2004 RFA No.214 of 2004 alongwith Cross Objections No.392 of 2004 Date of Decision: 5th May, 2009 RFA No.337 of 2004 State of H.P. and others Appellants Versus Jai Singh and others Respondents. RFA No.211 of 2004 State of H.P. and others Appellants Versus Inder Singh and others Respondents RFA No.212 of 2004 State of H.P. and others Appellants Versus Inder Singh and others Respondents RFA No.213 of 2004 State of H.P. and others Appellants Versus Tula Ram Respondent RFA No.214 of 2004 State of H.P. and others Appellants Versus Tula Ram and others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. In all the appeals For the appellants: Mr.R.K.Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Ankush D.Sood, Addl. Advocate General and Mr.R.P.Singh, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent(s)/: Mr.Rupinder Singh, Advocate. Cross-objectors Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The State has filed the appeals and the respondents-claimants have filed cross-objections assailing the common award dated 30.6.2003 passed by the District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, in Land Ref. Petitions No. 2-N/4 of 2002/2001, titled as Inder Singh and others vs. State of H.P.; No. 3-N/4 of 2002/2001, titled as Inder Singh and others vs. State of H.P. and others, 4-N/4 of 2002/2001, titled as Jai Singh and others vs. State of H.P. and others; 6-N/4 of 2002/2001, titled as Tula Ram vs. State of H.P. and others, and 7-N/4 of 2002/2001 titled as Tula Ram and others vs. State of H.P. and others. All the land Reference Petitions were consolidated in terms of order dated 1.1.2003. For the purpose of recording the evidence Land Reference Petition No.2-N/4 of 2002/2001, titled as Inder Singh & others vs. State of H.P., from which RFA No.211 of 2004 has arisen. Common evidence was led by the parties. For the public purpose, namely, construction of Naina Chhadyar-Naina tikker-Dangyar road, claimants’ land situate in Village Naina-Chhadyar, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmaur, was acquired. It is the claimants’ case that the possession of the land was actually taken over in the year 1970/74 as the road thereupon stood constructed by the State, but, however, the fact of the matter is that Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) acquiring the land was issued by the State Government on 28.12.1994, which was published in the H.P. Rajpatra on 21.1.1995. 3 The Collector, Land Acquisition, passed its award No.14 of 1999 under Section 11 of the Act on 14.10.1999, awarding different rates for different categories of land, details of which are as under:- Sl.No. Classification of land Rate per bigha 1. Kuhal Salana Rs.3,66,667-00 2. Ober Khadi Rs.2,05,333.52 3. Oberg air-Khadi Rs.1,35,666.79 4. Banjar Jadeed Rs. 91,666.75 5. Ghssni Rs. 18,333.35 6. Banjar Kadeem Rs. 29,333.35 7. Na-Kabil Rs.1,833. .34 (sic) Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed Land Reference Petitions under Section 18 of the Act. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Court below framed the following issues, which are common in all the appeals:- 1. Whether the compensation awarded to the petitioners Inder Singh and others, Inder Singh and others, Jai Singh and others, Jai Singh and others, Tula Ram and Tula Ram and others, respectively is inadequate and is required to be enhanced?. OPP. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to solatium under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. If so, to what extent. OPP. 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to interest from the date of possession? OPP. Opportunity to lead evidence was afforded to the parties but, however, it is a matter of record that the claimants alone led oral evidence and examined Shri Inder Singh as PW-1 and Shri Yashvir Singh, Patwari as PW-2. The witnesses proved on record sale deeds (Ext.P-1 and Ext.P-2). The respondent did not lead any evidence. 4 Appreciating the material on record (oral and documentary), the Court while accepting the exemplar sale deed Ext.P-2 for determining the market value of the acquired land, keeping in view the smallness of the land involved with respect to the exemplar sale deed, deducted an amount of 30% to determine the market value of the acquired land. Accordingly, instead of Rs.1,22,941.17 per Bigha as determined under sale deeds Ext.P-1 and Ext.P-2, the market value of the acquired land was determined to be Rs.86,049/- per Bigha. The Court below also rejected the claimants’ contention of damage caused to the unacquired land. However, while deciding Issue No.3, the Court below held the claimants entitled to interest w.e.f. 2.1.1984 instead of 21.1.1995. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Mr.R.K.Bawa, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, learned Additional Advocate General, has assailed the impugned award on the ground that the compensation awarded is on the higher side. Mr.Rupinder Singh, learned counsel appearing for the claimant has also assailed the award, but on the ground that compensation awarded is on the lower side. A chart, indicating the land reference petitions, name of parties, RFAs No. and cross-objections No., for ready reference, is as under:- Land Ref. petition No. Name of parties RFA No. Cross- objections No. 4-N/4 of 2002/2001 Jai Singh and others vs. State of H.P. and 337 of 2004 353 of 2004 5 others 2-N/4 of 2002/2001 Inder Singh & others vs. State of H.P. & others 211 of 2004 389 of 2004 3-N/4 of 2002/2001 Inder Singh & others vs. State of H.P. & others 212 of 2004 390 of 2004 6-N/4 of 2002/2001 Tula Ram vs. State of H.P. and others 213 of 2004 391 of 2004 7-N/4 of 2002/2001 Tula Ram and others vs. State of H.P. and others 214 of 2004 392 of 2004 Shri Inder Singh (PW-1) deposed that the possession of the acquired land was taken in the year 1960-61. He clarified that the commercial value of the acquired land is very high. He further deposed that due to construction of road part of his un-acquired land was damaged. He stated the market value of the acquired land is Rs.20 lacs per Bigha. He clarified that within the vicinity of the acquired land there are about 40-45 shops where hotels/Dhabas are being run. There are facilities including Senior Secondary School, Office of PWD and dispensary. The acquired land is just at the junction of Nahan-Shimla State highway and Naina Chhadyar-Dangyar roads. He proved sale deeds Ext.P-1 and Ext.P-2. There is nothing in the cross-examination, which can rebut the testimony of this witness. Shri Yashbir Singh, Patwari (PW-2) has proved on record that the possession for construction of the road in question was actually taken on 2.1.1984, which is evident from letter issued by Executive Engineer (Ext.PW-2/A). Even the claimant’s statement to the effect that the possession of the acquired land was actually taken over in the year 1960-61 stands unrebutted. Be that as it may be, the fact of the matter is that the 6 compensation prior to the date of acquisition cannot be awarded in the present proceedings. That the claimants’ unacquired land was damaged could not be sufficiently proved from the record. Except for bald assertion made by the claimant Shri Inder Singh, there is no material to substantiate the same. What is the extent of land and how much damage was caused has not been elaborated. Prior to making of statement in the Court on 5.3.2003 or filing of land Reference Petition in the year 2001, the claimants did not agitate the issue before any authority. Even according to him, the possession of the land was taken in the year 1960-61 and the road was constructed some where in the year 1974. Hence, I find no infirmity or illegality in the reasoning adopted and findings returned by the Court below while rejecting the claimants’ contention in this regard. This Court while deciding RFA No. 149 of 2007, titled as L.A.C. and others vs. Khem Singh, which also arises out of the very same acquisition proceedings, whereby the adjacent land was acquired, has upheld the award passed by the District Judge in Land Ref. Petition No.14- N/4 of 2003/2002, titled as Khem Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector and others, dated 19.3.2007, awarding compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- per Bigha. Incidentally Ext.P-2 produced in the present case is the very same sale deed (Ext.PW-1/A) on the basis of which the award was passed. In the present case, I see no reason as to why similarly situated claimants whose acquired land is adjacent to the land owners covered under RFA No.149 of 2007, be also not awarded compensation at the very same rate. The Court below in fact wrongly held that the total sum 7 of market value of the exemplar sale deeds Ext.P-1 and Ext.P-2 comes to Rs.1,22,941.17 per Bigha. In fact it is more than Rs.1,50,000/-. No deduction is warranted keeping in view the advantageous locations of the acquired land and in view of the ratio of law laid down in Nelson Fernades vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, 2007 (9) SCC 447. The entire land was utilized for the purpose. The Court below seriously erred in doing so. There is sufficient cogent and reliable material evidence on record to prove the fact that the market value of the acquired land was much more than what was determined by the Collector while passing the award. Incidentally, the Collector’s award does not disclose the basis on which the market value was determined by him. The State also did not place any material on record before the Court below. For the aforesaid reasons, the compensation awarded to the claimants is enhanced and it is directed that the claimants shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per Bigha. While awarding interest, the Court below has seriously erred in not taking into account the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Lila Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal, (2004) 9 SCC 337, the impugned award is modified and it is held that the claimants shall be entitled to interest only from the date of publication of Notification in the H.P. Rajpatra on 21.1.1995. Needless to add that the claimants shall be entitled to all statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation in accordance with the ratio of law laid down in Sunder vs. Union of India, 2001 (7) SCC 211. 8 For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned award is modified, the appeals are dismissed and the cross-objections are partly allowed. In view of the disposal of the main appeals and the cross- objections, learned counsel for the claimants do not press the miscellaneous applications. As such, all the miscellaneous applications in all the appeals are dismissed as not pressed. 5th May, 2009 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.