IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RFA No. 114 of 2004 Date of Decision : May 12, 2009 1. The Collector, District Solan, H.P. and another. Appellants. Versus M/s P.A. Pinion through its owner and proprietor Smt. Bhupinder Kaur Purewall wife of Shri G.S. Purewall, resident of Kasauli Road, Dharampur, Tehsil Kasauli District Solan, H.P. Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No. For the appellants : Mr. R. K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for the appellants. For the respondent : Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The State has assailed the impugned award dated 14.10.2003 passed by the District Judge, Solan, H.P. in petition No. 2-S/4 of 2001, titled as M/s P.A. Pinion through its owner and Proprietor Smt. Bhupinder Kaur Purewal versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. The challenge is on the ground that the compensation for 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 acquired land could not have been uniformly awarded regardless of the classification of the acquired land. For the public purpose namely construction of Kalka-Shimla National Highway petitioner’s land measuring 6-0-6 bighas situated in village Kumahrha, District Solan, H.P. was acquired by the State. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued by the State on 3.6.1998 which was published in the H.P. Rajpatra on 10.6.1998. The Collector passed the award No. 45/2000 dated 29.8.2000, under Section 11 of the Act awarding different rates for different categories of land. Aggrieved by the same the claimants filed land reference petition under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of the compensation. On the pleadings of the parties, the Court below framed the following issues: “1. Whether the petitioner has received less compensation, if so what is just and reasonable compensation? 2. Relief.” Opportunity to lead evidence was afforded to the parties. Sale deeds Ext.PW3/A, Ext.PW3/B, Ext.PW3/C, Ext.PW3/D, Ext. R-A produced by the parties were rejected by the Court below for the reasons that they did not pertain to the area of acquisition. The claimant’s evidence with regard to the compensation for fruit 3 bearing and non fruit bearing trees was found to be deficient and hence their claim for the same was also turned. However by referring to and relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas versus Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another, AIR 1988 SC 1652 and Suresh Kumar versus Town Improvement Trust Bhopal, (1989) 2 SCC 329 the Court below uniformly applied the rate awarded by the Collector for the best category of land i.e. KUHAL which was assessed at Rs. 3,97,726/- per bigha. This was done regardless of the classification and category of the land and the claimants petition was partly allowed. The enhanced compensation was directed to be paid to the claimants in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sunder versus Union of India, 2001 (7) SCC 211. The only question raised in the present appeal is as to whether the Collector could have uniformly applied the highest rate awarded by the Collector for the best category of land, to the entire acquired land regardless of classification and category. It is not in dispute that the entire land was to be utilized for the purpose of construction of road. It is also not in dispute that the land is situate on the national highway and has a high commercial value. This Court in Smt. Gulabi vs. State of H.P., AIR 1998 HP 9 and RFA No. 125 of 2003, titled as Land Acquisition Collector and another vs. Hari Singh decided on 8.9.2008 has uniformly awarded 4 compensation regardless of classification/category of the land acquired for construction of road. This Court in RFA No. 359 of 2006 titled State of H.P. and another versus Lobhi Ram and others and other connected matters decided on 23.12.2008 has held as under: “The entire land is to be utilized for the purpose of construction of road. It is not a case that some part of the land is to be wasted or left out for carrying out any development activities. While determining the question as to whether the principle of deduction at the time of determining the market value of large track of land on the basis of exemplar of small piece of land is to be carried out or not, the Apex Court in Atma Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another (2008(2) SCC 568) after considering its earlier decisions rendered in Administrator General of W.B. v. Collector, Varanasi (1988(2) SCC 150), Bhagwathula Samanna v. Special Tehsildar & Land Acquisition Officer (1991(4) SCC 506), Administrator General of W.B. v. Collector, Varanasi (2003 (1) SCC 354), Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (1988(3) SCC 751), Basant Kumar v. Union of India (1996(11) SCC 542), K. Vasundara Devi v. Revenue Divisional Officer (LAO) (1995(5) SCC 426, H.P. Housing Board v. Bharat S. Negi (2004(2) SCC 184) drew a distinction and held that unlike the land acquired by the Housing Board for setting-up of a Colony, the land acquired for the purpose of setting-up a sugar factory, no deduction at all was required to be made and the exemplar of small parcel of land can be considered for determining the market value of the acquired land. The Court held that where the land is to give substantial returns, there is no justification for making any deduction from the 5 price exhibited by the exemplars even if they are of small plots.” Further in Union of India v. Harinder Pal Singh and others 2005(12) SCC 564), while determining the compensation for acquisition of land pertaining to five different villages, the Apex Court uniformly awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- per acre irrespective of the classification and the category of the land. Further, in Nelson Fernades v. Special Land Acquisition Officer 2007(9) SCC 447) while dealing with the case where the land was acquired for laying a Railway line, the Court held that no deduction by way of development charges was permissible as there was no question of any development thereof. Therefore, in my view, the Court below has rightly arrived at its conclusion that the market value so determined has to be uniformly applied to the entire acquired land.” It is a settled position of law that compensation to be awarded to the claimants should be such which is just, fair and reasonable. The Court below has taken into account ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Suresh Kumar (supra) wherein it has been held that the compensation for the acquired land is to be valued not merely with reference to the time of issuance of notification but also by reference to the use to which it is reasonably put in future. If one category of land is better than the other category for agricultural or other purposes, in view of probable 6 future use of land i.e. for construction of road, the lands of all categories shall be deemed to be of similar potential and as such common rate is required to be awarded irrespective of the category of the land. For the aforesaid reasons I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned award. The Court below has not only considered the material in its entirely but also correctly appreciated the law. For the aforesaid reasons the present appeal without any merit is dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. May 12, 2009 (PK)