IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RFA No.196 of 1999 alongwith RFA Nos.78, 82, 85 to 89, 91, 195, 211 to 218 of 1999, 6 to 10, 95, 104, 105, 106, 115, 116, 117 & 327 of 2000 AND Cross Objections No.139/2000, 190, 191, 186, 187, 188, 189, 198 of 1999, 20 of 2001, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 127, 93, 94, 126, 130, 129, 131, 339, 128 of 2000, 19 of 2001 and 328 of 2000. Judgment Reserved on: 28.08.2009 Date of decision: 30.11.2009 Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 Yes. ________________________________________________________ 1. RFA No.196 of 1999 alongwith C.O.No.139 of 2000. Ram Lal & Others …….Appellants Versus L.A.C. & Another …….Respondents For the Appellant(s): Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr.B.C. Verma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General assisted by Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. 2. RFA No.78 of 1999 alongwith C.O.No.190 of 1999. Ram Lal & Others …….Appellants Versus L.A.C. & Another …….Respondents For the Appellant(s): Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr.B.C. Verma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General assisted by Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 3. RFA No.82 of 1999 alongwith C.O.No.191 of 1999. Babu Ram & Another …….Appellants Versus L.A.C. & Another …….Respondents For the Appellant(s): Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr.B.C. Verma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General assisted by Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. 4. RFA No.85 of 1999 alongwith C.O.No.186 of 1999. Dhani Ram …….Appellant Versus L.A.C. & Another …….Respondents For the Appellant(s): Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr.B.C. Verma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General assisted by Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. 5. RFA No.86 of 1999 alongwith C.O.No.187 of 1999. Ghamira …….Appellant Versus L.A.C. & Another …….Respondents For the Appellant(s): Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr.B.C. Verma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General assisted by Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. 6. RFA No.87 of 1999 alongwith C.O.No.188 of 1999. Gulaba …….Appellant Versus L.A.C. & Another …….Respondents For the Appellant(s): Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr.B.C. Verma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General assisted by Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. 3 7. RFA No.88 of 1999 alongwith C.O.No.189 of 1999. Bhim Lal & Others …….Appellants Versus L.A.C. & Another …….Respondents For the Appellant(s): Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr.B.C. Verma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General assisted by Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. 8. RFA No.89 of 1999 alongwith C.O.No.198 of 1999. Ranjit Singh …….Appellant Versus L.A.C. & Another …….Respondents For the Appellant(s): Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr.B.C. Verma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General assisted by Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. 9. RFA No.91 of 1999. Rania & Others …….Appellants Versus L.A.C. & Another …….Respondents For the Appellant(s): Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr.B.C. Verma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General assisted by Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. 10. RFA No.195 of 1999 alongwith C.O.No.20 of 2001. Ram Dass & Others …….Appellants Versus L.A.C. & Another …….Respondents For the Appellant(s): M/s.Ramakant Sharma and T.S. Chauhan, Advocates. For Respondent No.1: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General assisted by Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. 4 11. RFA No.211 of 1999 alongwith C.O.No.83 of 2000. Garja …….Appellant Versus L.A.C. & Another …….Respondents For the Appellant(s): M/s.Ramakant Sharma and T.S. Chauhan, Advocates. For Respondent No.1: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General assisted by Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. 12. RFA No.212 of 1999 alongwith C.O.No.84 of 2000. Ram Dass …….Appellants Versus L.A.C. & Another …….Respondents For the Appellant(s): M/s.Ramakant Sharma and T.S. Chauhan, Advocates. For Respondent No.1: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General assisted by Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. 13. RFA No.213 of 1999 alongwith C.O.No.85 of 2000. Satya Devi & Others …….Appellants Versus L.A.C. & Another …….Respondents For the Appellant(s): M/s.Ramakant Sharma and T.S. Chauhan, Advocates. For Respondent No.1: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General assisted by Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. 14. RFA No.214 of 1999 alongwith C.O.No.86 of 2000. Chunka …….Appellant Versus L.A.C. & Another …….Respondents For the Appellant(s): M/s.Ramakant Sharma and T.S. Chauhan, Advocates. For Respondent No.1: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General assisted by Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. 5 15. RFA No. 215 of 1999 alongwith C.O.No.87 of 2000. Sunder Ram & Others …….Appellants Versus L.A.C. & Another …….Respondents For the Appellant(s): M/s.Ramakant Sharma and T.S. Chauhan, Advocates. For Respondent No.1: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General assisted by Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. 16. RFA No.216 of 1999 alongwith C.O.No.88 of 2000. Bohri & Others …….Appellants Versus L.A.C. & Another …….Respondents For the Appellant(s): M/s.Ramakant Sharma and T.S. Chauhan, Advocates. For Respondent No.1: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General assisted by Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. 17. RFA No.217 of 1999 alongwith C.O.No.89 of 2000. Dili …….Appellant Versus L.A.C. & Another …….Respondents For the Appellant(s): M/s.Ramakant Sharma and T.S. Chauhan, Advocates. For Respondent No.1: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General assisted by Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. 18. RFA No.218 of 1999 alongwith C.O.No.90 of 2000 Vidya & Another …….Appellants Versus L.A.C. & Another …….Respondents For the Appellant(s): M/s.Ramakant Sharma and T.S. Chauhan, Advocates. For Respondent No.1: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General assisted by Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. 6 19. RFA No.6 of 2000 alongwith C.O.No.91 of 2000. Bali Ram & Others …….Appellants Versus L.A.C. & Another …….Respondents For the Appellant(s): M/s.Ramakant Sharma and T.S. Chauhan, Advocates. For Respondent No.1: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General assisted by Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. 20. RFA No.7 of 2000 alongwith C.O.No.92 of 2000. Lakhu …….Appellant Versus L.A.C. & Another …….Respondents For the Appellant(s): M/s.Ramakant Sharma and T.S. Chauhan, Advocates. For Respondent No.1: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General assisted by Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. 21. RFA No.8 of 2000 alongwith C.O.No.127 of 2000. Dandu Ram …….Appellant Versus L.A.C. & Another …….Respondents For the Appellant(s): M/s.Ramakant Sharma and T.S. Chauhan, Advocates. For Respondent No.1: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General assisted by Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. 22. RFA No.9 of 2000 alongwith C.O.No.93 of 2000. Munshi Ram …….Appellant Versus L.A.C. & Another …….Respondents For the Appellant(s): M/s.Ramakant Sharma and T.S. Chauhan, Advocates. For Respondent No.1: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General assisted by Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. 7 23. RFA No.10 of 2000 alongwith C.O.No.94 of 2000. Lobhi …….Appellant Versus L.A.C. & Another …….Respondents For the Appellant(s): M/s.Ramakant Sharma and T.S. Chauhan, Advocates. For Respondent No.1: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General assisted by Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. 24. RFA No.95 of 2000 alongwith C.O.No.126 of 2000. Kirlu …….Appellant Versus L.A.C. & Another …….Respondents For the Appellant(s): Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr.B.C. Verma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General assisted by Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate 25. RFA No.104 of 2000 alongwith C.O.No.130 of 2000. Sita …….Appellant Versus L.A.C. & Another …….Respondents For the Appellant(s): Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr.B.C. Verma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General assisted by Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. 26. RFA No.105 of 2000 alongwith C.O.No.129 of 2000. Fulan Devi & Others …….Appellants Versus L.A.C. & Another …….Respondents For the Appellant(s): Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr.B.C. Verma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General assisted by Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. 8 27. RFA No.106 of 2000 alongwith C.O.No.131 of 2000. Bhandari Ram …….Appellant Versus L.A.C. & Another …….Respondents For the Appellant(s): Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr.B.C. Verma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General assisted by Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. 28. RFA No.115 of 2000 alongwith C.O.No.339 of 2000. Babu Ram …….Appellant Versus L.A.C. & Another …….Respondents For the Appellant(s): M/s.Ramakant Sharma and T.S. Chauhan, Advocates. For Respondent No.1: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General assisted by Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. 29. RFA No.116 of 2000 alongwith C.O.No.128 of 2000. Budhi Ram …….Appellant Versus L.A.C. & Another …….Respondents For the Appellant(s): M/s.Ramakant Sharma and T.S. Chauhan, Advocates. For Respondent No.1: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General assisted by Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. 9 30. RFA No.117 of 2000 alongwith C.O.No.19 of 2001. Beli Ram …….Appellant Versus L.A.C. & Another …….Respondents For the Appellant(s): M/s.Ramakant Sharma and T.S. Chauhan, Advocates. For Respondent No.1: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General assisted by Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. 31. RFA No.327 of 2000 alongwith C.O.No.328 of 2000. Krishan Dass …….Appellant Versus L.A.C. & Another …….Respondents For the Appellant(s): Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr.B.C. Verma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General assisted by Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. All these appeals and Cross Objections are being disposed of by a common judgment as they relate to acquisition of land for the purposes of setting up a Cement Plant by Associated Cement Company (ACC) Limited, Barmana. Parties have agreed and consented that the 10 point of law being common in all these appeals and Cross Objections, the cases be taken up and decided together. It is undisputed before me that Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act’) was issued by the Himachal Pradesh Government on 7.10.1978 for acquisition of land in various villages in and around Barmana for public purpose which was described as mining of limestone, construction of a factory and residential complex by the Associated Cement Company Limited. This Notification was published in the Himachal Pradesh Rajpatra on 21.10.1978. The Land Acquisition Collector by his award granted compensation according to the classification of the land i.e. to say:- (i) Anderli Awal Rs.7500/- per bigha. (ii) Anderli Doem. Rs.6900/- per bigha. (iii) Bahrli Awal Rs.6200/- per bigha. (iv) Bahrli Doem Rs.3700/- per bigha. (v) Kharetar/Banjar etc. Rs.1200/- per bigha (un-cultivated) Being dis-satisfied by the award, the claimants-respondents petitioned the reference Court under Section 18 of the Act claiming just compensation pleading that the Collector had not properly appreciated the principle of law applicable for assessing just compensation in terms of Section 23(1-A) of the Act. It is undisputed that prior to the present appeals being instituted, the Associated Cement Company 11 had petitioned this Court against the award made by learned District Judge, which appeals were allowed and the cases were remanded for decision afresh in accordance with law as directed. Before referring to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the details of the acquired land may be considered which are tabulated here-in-below:- Sr. No. RFA/Cross Objection No. Title Land Ref. Number Area (Bigha) Classification District Judge Award dated 1. 327/2000 CO. 328/2000 Krishan Dass Vs. LAC & Anr 18/87 12-08 1-00 Bigha Baharli Doem 11-02 Bigha Khadetar 0-06 Gair Mumkin Pathar 7.11.1998 2. 78/1999 CO. 190/1999 Jangi & Others (Now Ram Lal & Ors.) Vs. LAC & Anr 9/87 7-06 3-06. Bigha Baharli Abbal 4-00 Bigha Baharli Doem 6.3.1999 3. 82/1999 CO .191/1999 Govind Ram & Ors. (Babu Ram & Ors.) Vs LAC & Anr 13/87 5-03 5-00 Bigha Baharli Awal 0-03 Bigha Gair Mumkin Beer 6.3.1999 4. 85/1999 CO.186 /1999 Dhani Ram Vs. LAC & Anr 6/87 12.08 2-00 Bigha Baharli Awal 10.8 Banjar Kadim 6.3.1999 5. 86/1999 CO.187 /1999 Ghamira & Others Vs LAC & Anr 3/87 7-00 2-00 Bigha Baharli Awal 5-00 Bigha Banjar Kadim 6.3.1999 6. 87/1999 CO.188 /1999 Gulaba Vs LAC & Anr 8/87 6-17 3-12 Bigha Baharli Awal 3-05 Kharetar 6.3.1999 7. 88/1999 CO.189 /1999 Magni Ram (Now Bhim Lal & Ors.) Vs LAC & Anr 41/87 6.11 6-00 Bigha Baharli Awal 0-11 Bigha Gair Mumkin Pathar 6.3.1999 8. 89/1999 CO.198 /1999 Ranjit Singh. Vs 1/87 4-14 4-00 Bigha Baharli Awal 6.3.1999 12 LAC & Anr. 0-14 Bigha Gair Mumkin. 9. 91/1999 Nagru etc. (Now Rania & Others) Vs. LAC. & Anr 53/87 16-00 6.10 Bigha Baharli Awal 9.10 Bigha Gair Mumkin. 6.3.1999 10. 195/1999 CO.20 2001 Mohan (Now )Ram Dass & Others) Vs. LAC & Anr. 27/87 9-00 8-15 Bigha Awal 0-05 Bigha Gair Mumkin Abadi. 6.3.1999 11. 104/1999 CO.130 /2000 Smt.Dev Jani & Ors. (Now Sita) Vs. LAC & Anr. 42/87 7-06 6-16 Baharli Doem 1-06 Gair Mumkin Pathar 0-04 Gair Mumkin Abadi 7.11.1998 12. 105/1999 CO.129 /2000 Phullan Devi & Ors. Vs. LAC & Anr. 44/87 6-03 5-00 Bigha Baharli Abbal 1-03 Bigha Gair Mumkin Pathar 7.11.1999 13. 106/1999 CO.131/2000 Chandu & Ors Vs. LAC & Anr. 2/87 9-02 8-04 Bigha Baharli Abbal 0-18 Bigha Gair Mumkin Khadetar 7.11.1998 14. 196/1999 CO.139/2000 Smt.Madi alias Devcki through LRs. Ram Lal and Others Vs. LAC & Anr. 4/87 9-18 8-09 Bigha Baharli Awal 0-19 Bigha Gair Mumkin Pathar/Beer 4.3.1999 15. 95/1999 CO.126/2000 Kirlu Vs. LAC & Anr. 45/87 8-16 8-00 Bigha Baharli Doem 0-16 Bigha Gair Mumkin Pathar 7.11.1998 16. 211/1999 CO.83/2000 Garja Vs. LAC & Anr. 23/87 5-10 5-00 Bigha Baharli Awal. 0-10 Bigha Gair Mumkin Beer. 6.3.1999 17. 212/1999 CO.84/2000 Ram Dass & Ors. Vs. LAC & Anr. 28/87 8-17 8-00 Bigha Baharli Abbal 0-17 Bigha Gair Mumkin Pathar. 6.3.1999 18. 213/1999 CO.85/2000 Smt.Satya Devi & Others Vs. ACC & Anr. 47/87 9-13 9-00 Bigha Baharli Awal 0-13 Bigha Gair Mumkin Pathar. 6.3.1999 19. 214/1999 CO.86/2000 Chunka Vs. LAC & Anr. 25/87 9-00 8-00 Bigha Baharli Awal. 0-05 Bigha Gair Mumkin Abadi. 0-15 Bigha Gair Mumkin Pathar. 6.3.1999 20. 215/1999 CO.87/2000 Ghanaya (Now Sunder Ram) Vs. 29/87 9-10 8-00 Bigha Baharli Awal 0-05 Bigha Gair Mumkin 6.3.1999 13 LAC & Anr. Abadi. 1-05 Bigha Gair Mumkin Pathar 21. 216/1999 CO.88/2000 Smt.Bohri & Ors. Vs. LAC & Anr. 10/87 7-08 7-00 Bigha Baharli Awal 0-08 Bigha Gair Mumkin 6.3.1999 22. 217/1999 CO.89/2000 Smt.Dilli Vs. LAC & Anr. 43/87 5-05 5-00 Bigha Baharli Awal 0-05 Bigha Gair Mumkin Pathar. 6.3.1999 23. 218/1999 CO90/2000 Smt.Vidya & Anr. Vs. LAC & Anr. 49/87 9-00 8-00 Bigha Baharli Awal 1-00 Bigha Gair Mumkin Pathar. 6.3.1999 24. 6/2000 CO.91/2000 Ghaniya ( Now Bali Ram & Ors.) Vs. LAC & Anr. 55/87 8-12 8-05 Bigha Baharli Awal. 0-07 Bigha Gair Mumkin Beer. 6.3.1999 25. 7/2000 CO.92/2000 Lakhu Vs. LAC & Anr. 24/87 10-00 9-00 Bigha Baharli Awal. 1-0 Bigha Gair Mumkin Pathar. 6.3.1999 26. 8/2000 CO.127/2000 Dandu Ram Vs. LAC & Anr. 26/87 6-03 5-05Bigha Baharli Awal 0-05 Bigha Gair Mumkin Abadi. 0-13 Bigha Gair Mumkin Pathar. 6.3.1999 27. 9/2000 CO.93/2000 Munshi Ram Vs. LAC & Anr. 51/87 4-13 4-10 Bigha Baharli Awal 0-03 Bigha Gair Mumkin Pathar. 6.3.1999 28 10/2000 CO.94/2000 Labhi Vs. LAC & Anr. 20/87 9-16 8-15 Bigha Baharli Awal 0-05 Bigha Gair Mumkin Abadi. 0-16 Bigha Gair Mumkin Pathar 6.3.1999 29. 115/2000 CO.339/2000 Babu Ram Vs. LAC & Anr. 16/87 9-11 9-00 Bigha Bharli Doem 0-11 Bigha Gair Mumkin. 6.3.1999 30. 116/2000 CO.128/2000 Budhi Ram Vs. LAC & Anr. 50/87 7-00 6-10 Bigha Baharli Awal. 0-10 Bigha Gair Mumkin Beer. 6.3.1999 31. 117/2000 CO.19/2001 Beli Ram Vs. LAC 31/87 10-00 8-10 Bigha Baharli Awal 1-00 Bigha Gair Mumkin Pathar. 0-10 Bigha Beer. 6.3.1999 14 Cross Objections have been preferred by respondent No.2-Company in each of the appeals. The claimants have prayed that the value of the land was not less than Rs.40,000/- per bigha. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submit that since the purpose of the acquisition was for mining, the nature of the land did not make any difference and that it had to be assessed at a flat rate. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the amount which has been awarded is high and is not justified by the material/evidence on the record. He submits that the award of the Collector determines the true value of the land. It is urged by him that the acquisition was of a large chunk of land by a common Notification and sale instances brought on record by the respondents being for a small pieces of land, could not be used as exemplars for determining just compensation. It is undisputed before me that the Notification under Section 4 of the Act provided for acquisition of the land in various villages for a common purpose i.e. mining and construction of a factory and residential colony in Gagal by the Associated Cement Company. The Collector has taken note of this fact and also that the National Highway-21 runs through this land. Adverting to the evidence on record what requires to be considered is the testimony of State 15 Geologist Shri Subhash Sharma Son of Shri Siri Ram Sharma, RW-1, who appeared as a witness for the State. He has testified on oath that he was working as State Geologist with the State of Himachal Pradesh since October, 1971 to August, 1995. In 1974, Shri Karlelkar of Associated Cement Company, filed an application in his office requesting for permission for survey and prospecting limestone etc. to determine the grade of the stone for its suitability for use and manufacture of Cement etc. The survey was to be conducted by the officials of respondent No.2 in and around Gagaldhar and Bilaspur. In 1975 recommendation was made by the Department for according permission for prospecting of the area including the land of the claimants and drilling operations were carried out by the respondents to ascertain the quality of the rock, the land and its suitability for being used in cement manufacturing and establishing manufacturing facilities. This permission was granted by the State. Having found the area suitable and the material fit for manufacture of Cement, respondent No.2 applied to the Union of India for an Industrial Licence and other necessary permissions. During the interregnum the entire site was surveyed and inspected in detail. The Central Government granted the necessary licence and permission(s) to the Associated Cement Company in the year 1976. He states that once prospecting activities had been undertaken by the Company and acquisition recommended by the State 16 Government, the residents of the village(s) became aware about the commercial potentiality of the land. Consequently, it was quite possible that the prices of the land had been inflated by them. His evidence has been referred to in some detail as it establishes that the area selected was suitable for the purposes of mining limestone of high quality, setting up a factory and housing colony in the area and a conscientious decision was taken to acquire the land. In other words, the classification and nature of the land had lost importance. It was the ultimate use of the land which had to be considered. The respondent had chosen the site, requested for permission for survey/prospecting, testing the minerals, rocks etc. and only thereafter sought permission from the Union Government for setting up a factory. The claimants led evidence to establish the value of the land on the basis of its classification irrespective of the use to which it may have been put and to demonstrate that this value was not inflated because of the fact that the land was to be used for commercial purposes. The petitioners have appeared as witnesses in each case instituted by them and have also brought on record sale instances to establish the value of the land which according to them was the basis for award of just compensation. The learned Reference Court while disposing of the petitions, has relied upon the other awards made by 17 the reference Court(s) for the land situated in the adjoining/contiguous villages. The Court has not considered/accepted some of the sale deeds produced on the record on the ground that they relate to small pieces of land and cannot be used for determining the compensation of large tract of land. The Court also observes that some of the sale deeds may not represent bonafide transaction(s), that is to say, the value of the land has been inflated/increased solely for the purpose of increasing the value of the land and does not represent the true value/worth of the land sold. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered the record. Notification under Section 4 of the Act, dated 7th October, 1978, was for a large chunk of land measuring 1934 bighas. The appellants claimed minimum of Rs.30,000/- or higher per bigha as the true value of the land, whereas the respondents contend that there is no evidence on the record to justify this submission and that the sale transactions being relied upon cannot be relied upon as they relate to small parcels of land. The Collector has abstracted the Notification under Section 4 of the Act:- “The Himachal Pradesh Government issued notification bearing No.Ind- F.10-278(AI) dated 7th October, 1978 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) for the acquisition 18 of land in various villages including village Baloh for public purpose namely for the mining, construction of factory and colony by the Associated Cement Companies Limited, Gagal at their expenses. The notification was published in H.P. Raj Patra vide No.IND-F.10- 2/78(IA)dated 21st October, 1978. Subsequently some khasra numbers were denotified from acquisition by the Government under section 48(1) vide No. IND-F.10.2/78(IA) dated the 3rd August, 1981 and consequently land comprised in khasra number 106/78, 81, 84, 96/78, 97/78, 104/78, 103/78/1/2, 116/112/78/2/1, 82, 83, 80, 80/1, 79, 79/1, 107/78, 108/78, kita 16 measuring 85-3 bighas situated in village Baloh, Tehsil and District Bilaspur is left for acquisition. This area is being acquired for public purpose by the Government on the request of the Associated Cement Companies, Limited at their expenses for mining purposes.” (Emphasis supplied) This conclusively establishes the fact that the land is required for a commercial purpose. No other evidence was required to prove that minerals/limestone were required to be extracted from the land for being used in the manufacture of cement. 19 The evidence of RW-1, State Geologist, proves that the area/land was selected only when it is found fit for mining of stones and setting up of a factory after a comprehensive survey and analysis, deep contemplation and testing and was a conscious decision taken by the respondent to acquire the land. In other words, the utility of the land was tested and determined before its acquisition. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the Land Acquisition Officer Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittor vs. L.Kamalamma (Smt.) Dead by LRs and others, 1998(2) SCC 385, holding that once the area was found fit for being developed as an urban settlement award of compensation on the basis of classification was not justified. Reliance is also placed on the decision made in Ravinder Narain and Another vs. Union of India, (2003)4 SCC 481, holding:- “6. Where large area is the subject matter of acquisition, rate at which small plots are sold cannot be said to be a safe criteria. Reference in this context may be made to three decisions of this Court in The Collector of Lakhimpur v. Bhutan Chandra Dutta (AIR 1971 SC 2015), Prithvi Raj Taneja (dead) by Lrs. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh andanr. (AIR 1977 SC