IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RFA Nos.340 of 2005 and 341 of 2005 alongwith Cross Objection Nos.352 of 2005 and 353 of 2005. Judgment Reserved on: 27.4.2010 Date of decision: 05.05.2010 1. RFA No. 340 of 2005 Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. … Appellants Versus Krishan Kumar. … Respondent 2. RFA No. 341 of 2005 Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. … Appellants Versus Mohan Lal & Another … Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. Both these appeals have been taken up together for consideration as they arise out of a common judgment of the learned reference Court. 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 The land was acquired by the State for the purposes of construction of Sewerage Plant in Solan. A Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 6.10.1996 and the award was made by the Collector on 1.6.2000. Considering the totality of evidence on record, more especially, un-rebutted statement of claimant that the land was situated adjoining to Scientist Colony, Post Graduate Boys Hostel, Radha Swami Satsang Complex, Degree College, College Hostel, Durga Public School, Tehsil Office, District Animal Husbandry Hospital, Daya Anand Adarsh Vidyala, Housing Board Colony, D.C. Office, Zonal Hospital, and Office of the Executive Engineer, the court proceeds to award an amount of Rs.812/- per square meter as just compensation for the land acquired. The Court holds that the fact that the land was possessed of access to facilities and amenities, as noticed, has gone unrebutted. The award has been made on the basis of the purpose of acquisition, which was construction of treatment plant etc., and not on the basis to which it was actually put. The court took into consideration while assessing this value the fact that after the construction of the Sewerage plant, the adjoining holdings of the petitioner-claimant would also be rendered useless. The same question was considered by this Court in RFA No. 8 of 2007 LAC & Others Vs. Rattni and Another with other connected appeals. This Court upheld the award of the same rate for the land which 3 was awarded by the Collector. These appeals are according dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. C.M.P. No. 716 of 2005 in RFA No. 340 of 2005 C.M.P. No. 718 of 2005 in RFA No. 341 of 2005 These applications have been filed by the State seeking permission to lead additional evidence to prove the value of the land vide sale deeds executed on January, 1998, November, 1997, November, 1997, January, 1998 and September, 2002. The reason given for the purpose of leading additional evidence is that the compensation amount is large and the State has decided to return this land to the land owners. This is no ground for allowing additional evidence under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. These applications are accordingly rejected. Cross-Objections No. 352 of 2005 in RFA No.340 of 2005 Cross-Objections No. 353 of 2005 in RFA No.341 of 2005 The respondents-claimants seek increase in the value of just compensation. The respondents- claimants plead that evidence as to the nearness of the land to modern facilities, which remained unrebutted, and the sale deeds Ex. P-1 to P-10 as also the awards Ex. P-11 to P-13, the value of the land cannot be less than Rs.1500/- per square meters on the date when the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued. I can not persuade myself to accept the submission of the respondents/claimants. The learned 4 reference court has considered the entirety of evidence in arriving at the value of Rs.812/- per square meters. While considering this to be the true and just value, the learned court also considers the collateral damage which would occur by setting up of a treatment plant on the land of the claimants. There is, thus, no merit in these cross-objections. On a conspectus of the entire facts on record, the court awards a sum of Rs.812/- per square meters. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the award passed by the learned reference court. These cross-objections are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. May 5, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), (aks) Judge.