IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RFA No. 193 of 2006 along with RFAs No. 194, 196, 198, 199, 204, 205, 207, 208, 209, 211 and 213 of 2006. Decided on: 20.10.2011. __________________________________________________________ 1. RFA No. 193 of 2006: The State of H.P. and another. … Appellants. Versus Shri Ram Krishan. … Respondent. 2. RFA No. 194 of 2006: The State of H.P. and another. … Appellants. Versus Shri Attar Singh … Respondent. 3. RFA No. 196 of 2006: The State of H.P. and another. … Appellants. Versus Shri Prem and another. … Respondents. 4. RFA No. 198 of 2006: The State of H.P. and another. … Appellants. Versus Shri Yogeshwar and others. … Respondents. 5. RFA No. 199 of 2006: The State of H.P. and another. … Appellants. Versus Shri Nand Lal and others. … Respondents. 6. RFA No. 204 of 2006: The State of H.P. and another. … Appellants. Versus Shri Gopal and others. … Respondents. 7. RFA No. 205 of 2006: The State of H.P. and another. … Appellants. Versus Shri Leela Devi and others. … Respondents. 8. RFA No. 207 of 2006: The State of H.P. and another. … Appellants. Versus Shri Dhani Ram. … Respondent. 9. RFA No. 208 of 2006: The State of H.P. and another. … Appellants. Versus Shri Gurudyal and others. … Respondents. 10. RFA No. 209 of 2006: The State of H.P. and another. … Appellants. Versus Shri Rajender. … Respondent. 2 11. RFA No. 211 of 2006: The State of H.P. and another. … Appellants. Versus Shri Liaq Ram … Respondent. 12. RFA No. 213 of 2006: The State of H.P. and another. … Appellants. Versus Shri Dalip Chand and others. … Respondents. __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant(s) : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. AG and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy.AG. (In all the appeals). For the respondents : Mr. Debinder Ghosh, Advocate. (In all the appeals). ___________________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). Since all these appeals arise out of a common award dated 8.12.2005 passed by the learned District Judge, Solan, H.P. in Reference No. 45-S/4 of 2005, Ram Krishan versus State of H.P. and another and the connected matters and further that all the reference petitions decided thereunder were consolidated and evidence was led in the main petition, the same are taken up together for disposal. 2. A road known as ‘Kunihar-Kuni-Domahar road’ came to be constructed by the H.P. P.W.D. The requisite notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short ‘the Act’) was issued on 30.10.2000. It was published in various newspapers on 21.11.2000, 24.11.2000 and 4.4.2001. In all, land measuring 19 bigha 12 biswa 8 biswansi, situate in village Vikrampur Patti Badanhan belonging to the respondents herein, who were petitioners before the learned Reference Court, came to be acquired for construction of the said road. The Land Acquisition 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 3 Collector awarded compensation at a flat rate of Rs. 50,000/- per bigha. Being dissatisfied ‘the persons interested’, who shall hereinafter be referred to as the petitioners, applied to the Land Acquisition Collector for referring the matter to the Court of the learned District Judge mainly on the ground that the market value assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector was grossly inadequate. According to them, the market value of the acquired lands was Rs. Ten lac per bigha. 3. The prayer for enhancement of compensation was opposed by the appellants herein, who were respondents in the learned Court below and shall hereinafter be referred to as such, on the ground that before the Land Acquisition Collector the petitioners had themselves demanded compensation at the rate of Rs. 66,000/- per bigha. 4. On the pleadings on behalf of the parties, the following issues were settled by the learned Reference Court:- 1. Whether the amount of compensation awarded is inadequate and liable to be enhanced? 2. Relief. 5. In support of their claim for enhancement of compensation, the petitioners led evidence by way of affidavits as also documentary evidence before the learned Reference Court. The respondents also examined one witness by way of affidavit. The witnesses on both sides were subjected to cross-examination. 6. After hearing the parties, the learned Reference Court allowed the petitions by holding market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per bigha by adopting the following reasoning vide paras 12 to 17 of the impugned award dated 8.12.2005:- 4 12. “In the present case, the petitioners have led evidence to prove that the market value of the land was Rs. 10,00,000/- per bigha. It is sought to be proved through sale deeds Exts. PN to PQ by examining its vendor or vendees. Vide sale deed Ext. PN, Bhim sen PW3 has purchased one Biswa Gair Mumkin Abadi land on 19.9.1999 for Rs. 30,000/-, i.e. Rs. 6,00,000/- per Bigha in Mauja Hatkot from one ravinder and vide sale deed Ext. PO, Sunil Kumar PW4 has sold his 7 Biswas Barani Awal land in Mauja Kothi to Tarawati for Rs. 70,000/- or to say at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- per Bigha, vide sale deed Ext. PP, Lal Singh PW2 has purchased 6 Biswas of Ghasni land from Lila Wati in Mauja Vikrampur for Rs. 45,000/-, i.e. at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per Bigha on 7.9.1999. The petitioners have also placed on record sale deeds Ext. PQ and Ext. PR, but have not produced the vendee or vendor to prove these. Besides this, the petitioners have also brought on record the average of one year price Ext. PC per which value of one Bigha Majrua land has been shown to be Rs. 10,80,000/- and Gair Majrua land to be Rs. 1,35,000/- per Bigha. By this evidence the petitioners have tried to show that the value of the land was much more than what has been assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector. The petitioners have also tried to prove through certificate Ext. PA to PC that land is situated adjacent to developing localities of Domehar, Kunihar and Arki. 13. To rebut this evidence of the petitioners, respondents have led no evidence. However, the land involved in Ext. PN is one Biswa Gair Mumkin Abadi which is a built up area whereas the acquired land is a big chunk of land, therefore, there cannot be a comparative comparison between these two and thus it would not be safe to make this instance of sale as the base for assessing the market value of the land. More over this land is not situated in the village where the acquired land is located. Similarly, the land 5 involved in sale deed Ext. PO is not situated in the Mauja where the acquired land is situated. However, the transaction involved in sale deed Ext. PP is situated in the same Mauja in which the acquired land is and is only one year prior to the date of notification under Section 4 and is also for a bigger chunk of land and I find it most comparable instance out of the instances of sale on account of its proximity from time angle and proximity from situation angle without making any adjustment by deductions for laying out roads, drains, sewers and other civic amenities as the land has been acquired for construction of road. 14. The acquired land consists of various kinds of land, viz Barani Awal, Barani Doyam, Barani Soyam, Banjar Kadim and Ghasni and the Land Acquisition Collector has awarded the flat rate irrespective of the quality of land and I also propose to award the flat rate in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Suresh Kumar vs. Town Improvement Trust Bhopal, 1989 LACC 263 wherein it has been held as under:- “It is accepted principal that the land is not to be valued merely by reference to the use at the time at which its value has to be determined, that is, the date of notification under section 4, but also by reference to the use to which it is reasonably capable of being put in future”. 15. Besides the sale deeds referred to above, the petitioners have also produced the one year average sale price of the land in the area Ext. PC which reflects per Bigha rate of Majrua land to be Rs. 10,80,000/- and for Gair Majrua land to be Rs. 1,35,000/- per Bigha. The transactions which have made basis for working out the average sale price have not been produced on record to show their genuineness and the possibility of these being executed with a view to show higher prices as the process for acquisition of the acquired land was on during that period, cannot be ruled out. Hence I do 6 not think it safe to base this average sale price for assessing the market value of the acquired land. 16. The respondents as stated above have led no documentary evidence to rebut the aforesaid evidence of the petitioners. Therefore, taking the aforesaid evidence in consideration, I am of the opinion that Ext. PP is the most comparable instance of sale vide which six Biswas of land has been sold for Rs. 45,000/-, i.e. at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per Bigha. 17. Fact cannot be lost sight of that value of land be it in village or town have gone up sharply in the past. It can also be assumed that it had increased after making of the notification and before award. Keeping in view the fact that land has good potential due to its proximity with the town of Arki, town of Kunihar and Domehar. The market value assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector is inadequate and deserved to be enhanced. The market value of the land is therefore assessed at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per Bigha and the compensation therefore awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector is inadequate and liable to be enhanced. Issue is decided in favour of the petitioners.” 7. I have heard the learned Additional Advocate General with learned Deputy Advocate General and the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 8. The relevant date for determination of the market value of the acquired land in this case would be the latest date of publication of the said notification, that is, 4.4.2001. The acquired lands are situate in village Vikrampur Patti Badanhan. As per sale deed Ext. PP, PW-2 Lal Singh had purchased 6 biswa of ‘Ghasni’ land from Lila Wati in Mauja Vikrampur for Rs. 45,000/-, that is, at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per bigha on 7.9.1999. This sale instance 7 is proximate in time and location to the acquired lands as has been held by the learned Reference Court and as such can very well be taken to be an exemplar for determining market value of the acquired lands. True it is that vide sale deed Ext. PP, a small piece of land measuring 6 biswa was sold. However, the fact remains that though the acquired land is a big chunk measuring 19 bigha 12 biswa 8 biswansi, yet the fact remains that the same comprises of small extents of lands belonging to different petitioners. It being so, to my mind, the learned Reference Court has rightly not resorted to any discounting on the ground that whereas the sale instance relates to the small piece of land, the land acquired is a big chunk. 9. Even otherwise, as per yearly average sale price of land in Mauja Vikrampur as reflected in Ext. PC, average price of land in the area was Rs. 10,80,000/- per bigha between 1.6.1999 to 31.5.2000 which again is proximate to the acquisition in question. In case the value of land reflected in Ext. PC, which is Rs. 10,80,000/- per bigha, is taken into consideration, the learned Reference Court has rightly not resorted to any discounting of sale price reflected in sale instance Ext. PP, which is Rs. 1,50,000/- per bigha. 10. In so far as grant of solatium and interest etc. on the amount of market value of the acquired land is concerned, there is no challenge to the same. 11. In view of the above, there is no need for any interference with the impugned award dated 8.12.2005 at the hands of this Court. The appeals are accordingly dismissed being without any merit. (V.K. Sharma) October 20, 2011. Judge. (cr) 8