IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA No. 36 of 2005 with Cross Objection No. 159/05, RFA No. 37 of 2005, RFA No. 38 of 2005 with Cross Objection No. 160/05, RFA No. 39 of 2005, RFA No. 41 of 2005, RFA No. 42 of 2005, RFA No. 43 of 2005, RFA No. 44 of 2005, RFA No. 45 of 2005, RFA No. 46 of 2005, RFA No. 47 of 2005, RFA No. 48 of 2005 with Cross Objection No. 161/05, RFA No. 49 of 2005 with Cross Objection No. 162/05, RFA No. 50 of 2005 with Cross Objection No. 163/05, RFA No. 51 of 2005, RFA No. 52 of 2005, RFA No. 53 of 2005 with Cross Objection No. 164/05, RFA No. 54 of 2005 with Cross Objection No. 165/05, RFA No. 55 of 2005 and RFA No. 56 of 2005 with Cross Objection No. 166/05. Judgement reserved on: 12.3.2008. Date of decision: March 31, 2008. [ For title, please see pages (i) to (iii) ] Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. R.K .Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate. ( In all the appeals). Kuldip Singh, Judge. This judgement shall dispose of twenty appeals, i.e. RFA Nos. 36 of 2005 with Cross Objection No. 159/05, RFA No. 37 of 2005, RFA No. 38 of 2005 with Cross Objection No. 160/05, RFA No. 39 of Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… 2005, RFA No. 41 of 2005, RFA No. 42 of 2005, RFA No. 43 of 2005, RFA No. 44 of 2005, RFA No. 45 of 2005, RFA No. 46 of 2005, RFA No. 47 of 2005, RFA No. 48 of 2005 with Cross Objection No. 161/05, RFA No. 49 of 2005 with Cross Objection No. 162/05, RFA No. 50 of 2005 with Cross Objection No. 163/05, RFA No. 51 of 2005, RFA No. 52 of 2005, RFA No. 53 of 2005 with Cross Objection No. 164/05, RFA No. 54 of 2005 with Cross Objection No. 165/05, RFA No. 55 of 2005 and RFA No. 56 of 2005 with Cross Objection No. 166/05, which have arisen out of common award, dated 30.11.2004, passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, in Land Ref. Case Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 of 2003, respectively. 2. The facts in brief are that State of Himachal Pradesh acquired land in village Tyaman for public purpose for the construction of Namhol- Bahadurpur road for which notification, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) was published in the gazette on 16.4.1994. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, the Collector), announced the award on 18.3.1997 and awarded compensation, as per classification of the land as follows:- 1. Anderli Aval Rs. 11,041.00 per Bigha. 2. Anderli Doam Rs. 8,353.60 per Bigha. 3. Baharli Aval Rs. 5,669.80 per Bigha. 4. Khariyatar and Banjar. Rs. 895.20 per Bigha. 3. The respondents were aggrieved by the award of the Collector, therefore, they filed reference petitions, under Section 18 of the Act for determination of market value of the acquired land. The …3… learned District Judge, vide order dated 9.1.2004 passed in Land Reference Petition No. 4 of 2003, had consolidated Land Reference Petitions No. 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 of 2003 with Land Reference Petition No. 4 of 2003. The learned District Judge on 9.1.2004, at the time of consolidation of the reference petitions, framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the Collector Land Acquisition has inadequately assessed the market value of the land under acquisition? OPP 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the amount of compensation w.e.f. 1985? OPP. 3. Relief. 4. The learned District Judge, vide common award, dated 30.11.2004, has assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.66,000/- per Bigha for Anderli Aval land and for other types of land, it has been held that the reference petitioners shall be entitled to the amount in the same ratio as given for other quality of land keeping in view the price fixed at Rs.66,000/- per Bigha for Anderli Aval land. In other words, the learned District Judge has assessed the market value of the acquired land as per the classification of the land. The learned District Judge has allowed interest as per impugned award. The common award, dated 30.11.2004, has been assailed by way of above appeal, but Cross Objection No. 159 of 2005 in RFA No. 36 of 2005, Cross objection No. 160 of 2005 in RFA No. 38 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 161 of 2005 in RFA No. 48 of 2005, Cross Objection No. …4… 162 of 2005 in RFA No. 49 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 163 of 2005 in RFA No. 50 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 164 of 2005 in RFA No. 53 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 165 of 2005 in RFA No. 54 of 2005 and Cross Objection No. 166 of 2005 in RFA No. 56 of 2005 have also been filed for enhancement of compensation. 5. I have heard Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants, Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for the respondents in all the appeals and gone through the record. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that learned District Judge has erred in assessing the market value of Anderli Aval land at the rate of Rs.66,000/- per Bigha and of other lands proportionately. It has been submitted that the compensation awarded by the Collector of the acquired land as per classification of the land is just and equitable and it does not require any further enhancement. The material on record has not been properly appreciated by the learned District Judge. The sale deed Ex. RA relied by the appellants in the reference court has not been taken into consideration. In brief submission has been made that respondents are not entitled to any enhancement of compensation. On behalf of the respondents though the impugned award has been supported generally but in appeals in which cross objections have been filed, the learned counsel representing the respondents has prayed for enhancement of compensation. In those appeals further submissions have been made that the cross objectors- respondents are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per biswa as per award Ex. PD irrespective of the classification of the land. The cross objectors- …5… respondents are also entitled to additional compensation, solatium under Section 23 of the Act and statutory interest as per law. 6. In order to appreciate the respective contentions of the parties, it is necessary to refer to the evidence which has come on record. PW 1 Dila Ram has stated that their land was acquired for construction of Namhol- Bahadurpur link road at village Tyaman. The possession of the land was taken in the year 1983 by the Public Works Department. Less compensation has been paid to them. Their land was of good quality. The village Ghial is adjacent to their village and the land of that village was also acquired for the same purpose and good compensation was given to the persons of that village. In cross examination, he has denied that their village is situated in backward area. 7. PW 2 Bhagat Ram has stated that his land is situated in village Tyaman. He sold one biswa land to Sant Ram in the year 1985-86 for Rs.5,000/- vide sale deed Ex. PA. In cross examination, he has denied that he did not receive the sale consideration of the land which was sold. He has also denied that transaction was entered into just to claim the compensation. PW 3 Sant Ram has stated that he has purchased one biswa land from Bhagat Ram in village Tyaman for Rs.5,000/- in the year 1988. In cross examination, he has denied that transaction was entered into just to claim the compensation. 8. PW 4 Sant Ram has stated that he has purchased one biswa land in village Ghial for Rs.15,000/- vide sale deed Ex. PB. The villages Ghial and Tyaman adjoin to each other. In cross examination, he has denied that Rs.15,000/- were not paid to him. PW 5 Balwant …6… Singh, Patwari has stated that village Tyaman is near to village Ghial and falls in his circle. These villages are adjoining to each other. The kind of land in both the villages is also similar. The counsel for the reference petitioners has tendered in evidence sale deed Ex. PC and copy of award dated 22.8.2000 Ex. PD. The District Attorney has tendered in evidence sale deed Ex. RA and closed the evidence. 9. The sale deed Ex. PA dated 7.1.1988 is with respect to one biswa land in village Tyaman, which was sold for a consideration of Rs.5,000/-. The sale deed Ex. PB dated 10.8.1992 is of one biswa land situated in village Ghial, which was sold for a consideration of Rs.15,000/-. In village Tyaman one biswa land was sold for Rs.5,000/- on 5.1.1988, vide sale deed Ex. PC. The sale deed Ex. RA is of land measuring 12-2 bighas, situated in village Sehlon, which was sold on 12.1.1994 for Rs.40,000/-. The award dated 22.8.2000 Ex. PD is of land situated in village Ghial, which was acquired vide notification under Section 4 of the Act published in the gazette on 27.9.1995 for construction of Namhol- Bahadurpur road. 10. The notification, under Section 4 of the Act was published in the gazette in the present case on 16.4.1994, therefore, the sale transactions or other material proximate in time to the publication of notification, under Section 4 of the Act for assessing the market value of the acquired land are relevant. It has come on record that village Tyaman and village Ghial are adjacent to each other. PW 5 Balwant Singh Patwari has stated that village Ghial and village Tyaman fall in his circle and the kind of land in both the villages is also similar. The sale deed Ex. PA is dated 7.1.1988, the sale deed Ex. PC is dated …7… 5.1.1988. These sale deeds were executed more than six years prior to publication of notification, under Section 4 of the Act in the present case. Therefore, these sale deeds cannot be relied for assessing the market value of the acquired land. The sale deed Ex. RA is dated 12.1.1994, but it has been simply tendered in evidence. No evidence has been led to show the comparability of the land covered by sale deed Ex. RA with the acquired land. The sale deed Ex. RA is of land situated in village Sehlon, whereas, the acquired land is in village Tyaman. Therefore, the sale deed Ex. RA cannot be relied for assessing the market value of the acquired land. Now sale deed Ex. PB dated 10.8.1992 alongwith award dated 22.8.2000 Ex. PD are left on record for assessing the market value of the acquired land. 11. The sale deed Ex. PB is of one biswa land which was sold on 10.8.1992 in village Ghial for Rs.15,000/-. In Krishna Yachendra Bahadurvaru vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore and others, AIR 1979 SC 869, it has been held that estimation of market value in many cases must depend largely on evaluation of many imponderables and hence it must necessarily be to some extent a matter of conjecture or guess. In Ravinder Narain and another vs. Union of India, 2003 (4) SCC 481 and Rishi Pal Singh and others vs. Meerut Development Authority and another 2006 (3) SCC 205, it has been held that it cannot be laid down as an absolute proposition that the rates fixed for the small plots cannot be the basis for fixation of the rate. In an appropriate case specially when other relevant or material evidence is not available, such exemplars of small plots can be considered, but in such cases …8… appropriate deduction is to be made. In the above appeals, different areas ranging from 7 biswas to 2-11 Bighas of different owners were acquired. The award Ex. PD is with respect to acquisition of land situated in village Ghial for construction of Namhol- Bahadurpur road and in the present case also acquisition of land has been made in village Tyaman for construction of Namhol- Bahadurpur road. In award Ex. PD, the market value of land has been assessed at Rs.6,000/- per biswa or say Rs.1,20,000/- per bigha. The sale deed Ex. PB pertains to land situated in village Tyaman for one biswa land and is of small area. In ONGC Ltd. vs. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel and others (2005) 6 SCC 454, it has been held that in absence of any direct evidence on the said point, the court may take recourse to other methods viz. judgements and awards passed in respect of acquisition of lands made in the same village and/ or neighbouring villages. The award Ex. PD pertains to village Ghial which is adjacent to village Tyaman. The notification, under Section 4 of the Act for acquiring the land covered by award Ex. PD was published on 27.9.1994 and in the present case the notification, under Section 4 of the Act was published on 16.4.1994 and both the notifications are proximate in time to each other. In view of ONGC Ltd. case (supra), award Ex. PD which is of adjoining village can be relied for assessing the market value of the acquired land. The rate of land as per sale deed Ex. PB comes at Rs.15,000/- per biswa but as per award Ex. PD the rate comes at Rs.6,000/- per biswa. But keeping in view the fact that sale deed Ex. PB is of one biswa, therefore, after applying appropriate deduction, the market value of the acquired land …9… on the basis of sale deed Ex. PB can be fixed at Rs.6,000/- per biswa, which is equivalent to market rate assessed in award Ex. PD. 12. The Collector has awarded compensation of acquired land as per classification of the land. The learned District Judge has enhanced the compensation of the acquired land as per classification. One of the questions in the above appeals is whether awarding of compensation as per classification of the land is proper or not. The purpose of the acquisition in the present case is for construction of road and for that purpose classification completely looses significance. The acquired land is to be used / developed as a single unit for the construction of road. In H.P. Housing Board vs. Ram Lal and others, 2003 (3) Shim. L.C. 64 the acquisition was made for construction of housing board colony and compensation was assessed as per classification by the Collector. In the High Court the persons interested limited their claim for enhancement of compensation to Rs.400/- per square meter irrespective of classification. On those facts, a learned single Judge of this court has held that when the land is being developed for constructing housing colony, the classification completely looses significance and awarded compensation on the flat rate of Rs.200/- per square meter for the entire land irrespective of classification or nearness to the road. In Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh and others 2005 (12) SCC 564, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has approved the view of the High Court assessing the market value of the lands under acquisition in the five villages at uniform rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre, irrespective of their nature or quality and whether the same was situated nearer to the road or at some distance …10… therefrom. In the present case also, the acquired land is to be used/ developed for the construction of the road as a single unit and therefore, classification of the land looses significance. In these circumstances, the persons interested are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per biswa or Rs.1,20,000/- per bigha of the acquired land irrespective of classification, which is more than the market value assessed by learned District Judge. 13. RFA Nos. 37, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51, 52 and 55 of 2005 have been filed by Executive Engineer and another, the persons interested have not filed any cross-objections in these appeals. Therefore, irrespective of market value of the land assessed at Rs.6,000/- per biswa, in the present bunch of cases no benefit of this market value can be given to the persons interested in RFA Nos. 37, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51, 52 and 55 of 2005. RFA Nos. 36, 38, 48, 49, 50, 53, 54 and 56 of 2005 have also been filed by Executive Engineer and another but in these appeals the persons interested have filed cross objections, therefore, benefit of assessment of market value at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per biswa will go to the cross objectors in Cross Objection No.159 of 2005 filed in RFA No. 36 of 2005, Cross objection No. 160 of 2005 in RFA No. 38 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 161 of 2005 in RFA No. 48 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 162 of 2005 in RFA No. 49 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 163 of 2005 in RFA No. 50 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 164 of 2005 in RFA No. 53 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 165 of 2005 in RFA No. 54 of 2005 and Cross Objection No. 166 of 2005 in RFA No. 56 of 2005. The cross objectors shall also be entitled to additional compensation, under Section 23(1-A) of the …11… Act, 30% solatium on the enhanced market value, 9% interest per annum from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act for one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till payment on the excess amount of compensation. 14. As a result of the above discussion, RFA Nos. 37, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51, 52 and 55 of 2005 are dismissed. RFA Nos. 36, 38, 48, 49, 50, 53, 54 and 56 of 2005 are also dismissed, Cross Objection No.159 of 2005 filed in RFA No. 36 of 2005, Cross objection No. 160 of 2005 in RFA No. 38 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 161 of 2005 in RFA No. 48 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 162 of 2005 in RFA No. 49 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 163 of 2005 in RFA No. 50 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 164 of 2005 in RFA No. 53 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 165 of 2005 in RFA No. 54 of 2005 and Cross Objection No. 166 of 2005 in RFA No. 56 of 2005 are allowed, and award dated 30.11.2004 passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur is modified in Cross Objection No.159 of 2005 filed in RFA No. 36 of 2005, Cross objection No. 160 of 2005 in RFA No. 38 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 161 of 2005 in RFA No. 48 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 162 of 2005 in RFA No. 49 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 163 of 2005 in RFA No. 50 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 164 of 2005 in RFA No. 53 of 2005, Cross Objection No. 165 of 2005 in RFA No. 54 of 2005 and Cross Objection No. 166 of 2005 in RFA No. 56 of 2005 and the market value of the acquired land is held at Rs.6,000/- per biswa or say Rs.1,20,000/- per bigha. The cross objectors shall also be entitled to additional compensation at the rate of 12% per annum under Section 23(1-A) of the Act on such market value from 16.4.1994 the date of notification …12… under Section 4 of the Act to 18.3.1997 the date of the award of the Collector, 30% solatium on such market value under sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Act alongwith 9% interest per annum from 16.4.1994 for one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till payment. No costs. March 31, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge. …13… (i) 1. RFA No. 36 of 2005 with CO No.159 of 2005. Executive Engineer & anr. ….. Appellants. Vs. Dila Ram ….. Respondent. 2. RFA No. 37 of 2005. Executive Engineer & anr. ….. Appellants. Vs. Nathu Ram & ors. ….. Respondents. 3. RFA No. 38 of 2005 with CO No.160 of 2005. Executive Engineer & anr. ….. Appellants. Vs. Bhagat Ram ….. Respondent. 4. RFA No. 39 of 2005. Executive Engineer & anr. ….. Appellants. Vs. Prem Lal ….. Respondent. 5. RFA No. 41 of 2005. Executive Engineer & anr. ….. Appellants. Vs. Chandu Ram ….. Respondent. 6. RFA No. 42 of 2005. Executive Engineer & anr. ….. Appellants. Vs. Kamal Lal ….. Respondent. 7. RFA No. 43 of 2005. Executive Engineer & anr. ….. Appellants. Vs. Santi Devi ….. Respondent. …14… (ii) 8. RFA No. 44 of 2005. Executive Engineer & anr. ….. Appellants. Vs. Nanku Ram ….. Respondent. 9. RFA No. 45 of 2005. Executive Engineer & anr. ….. Appellants. Vs. Paryagu Devi ….. Respondent. 10. RFA No. 46 of 2005. Executive Engineer & anr. ….. Appellants. Vs. Gobindu & ors. ….. Respondents. 11. RFA No. 47 of 2005. Executive Engineer & anr. ….. Appellants. Vs. Dhana Ram ….. Respondent. 12. RFA No. 48 of 2005 with CO No.161 of 2005. Executive Engineer & anr. ….. Appellants. Vs. Nand Lal ….. Respondent. 13. RFA No. 49 of 2005 with CO No.162 of 2005. Executive Engineer & anr. ….. Appellants. Vs. Sant Ram ….. Respondent. 14. RFA No. 50 of 2005 with CO No.163 of 2005. Executive Engineer & anr. ….. Appellants. Vs. Mast Ram ….. Respondent. …15… (iii) 15. RFA No. 51 of 2005. Executive Engineer & anr. ….. Appellants. Vs. Shiv Ram ….. Respondent. 16. RFA No. 52 of 2005. Executive Engineer & anr. ….. Appellants. Vs. Babu Ram ….. Respondent. 17. RFA No. 53 of 2005 with CO No.164 of 2005. Executive Engineer & anr. ….. Appellants. Vs. Gehru Ram ….. Respondent. 18. RFA No. 54 of 2005 with CO No.165 of 2005. Executive Engineer & anr. ….. Appellants. Vs. Lekh Ram ….. Respondent. 19. RFA No. 55 of 2005. Executive Engineer & anr. ….. Appellants. Vs. Kaila Ram ….. Respondent. 20. RFA No. 56 of 2005 with CO No.166 of 2005. Executive Engineer & anr. ….. Appellants. Vs. Devi Ram ….. Respondent.