HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No.: 243 of 2002 Reserved on: 1.6.2009 Decided on: 7.7.2009 General Manager, Ranjit Sagar (Thein Dam) Project ………Appellant. Versus Bias Dev and others ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant Mr.Aman Sood, Advocate. For respondents No.1 & 2: Mr.Ashok Sharma, Advocate. For respondents No.3 and 4: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. V.K. Ahuja, J: This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the award passed by the learned District Judge, Chamba, dated 17.8.2002, in LAC Petition No.67 of 2000, vide which the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, Ranjit Sagar Dam Project, on 27.3.1999, was enhanced. The appeal has been filed by the appellant for modification of the award made by the learned District Judge being illegal, inoperative, unsustainable and excessive. __________________ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners in the original petition were residents of Mohal Sandhara, Tehsil Dalhousie, District Chamba and were owners in possession of different kinds of land in this Mohal which was acquired by the State of Himachal Pradesh for the purpose of construction of the reservoir for Ranjit Sagar (Thein Dam) Project. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (here-in-after referred to as the Act) was published on 10.4.1997 and the Land Acquisition Collector initiated the acquisition proceedings and announced the award on 27.3.1999. The land in question was 5-9-10 bigha (1/4 share) and structure also existed over it. The amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was as under: For the land: Rs.9,13,923/- For the structure: Rs.2,13,338/- The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation to the petitioners on different rates in respect of different kinds of land. Being aggrieved by the award announced by the Land Acquisition Collector, the petitioners assailed the same by filing a reference petition under Section 18 of the Act. The present petition, alongwith other petitions preferred by other petitioners, were consolidated and a common judgment was passed by the learned District Judge, Chamba in LAC Petition No.63 of 2000 and by a common judgment all the - 3 - petitions, including the present petition, were disposed of. The learned District Judge, after considering the evidence, held that the petitioners are entitled to 10% enhancement of the amount in respect of the acquired land. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant were that the amount awarded was excessive and as such the judgment of the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 had supported the impugned judgment for the reasons recorded therein. It was submitted that the learned District Judge had been very liberal towards appellant and had enhanced the compensation only to the extent of 10% keeping in view the evidence led before it, which findings do not call for an interference by this Court. A perusal of the record of the court of the learned District Judge shows that in support of the claim, the petitioners examined one of the petitioners, namely, PW-2 Kulwant Singh, Chaman Lal and one Jaishi Ram. Petitioners also placed on record the copy of the sale deed - 4 - Ext.P-1. No evidence was led by the respondents/present appellant. A perusal of the discussion made by the learned District Judge shows that he had considered that the land acquired was in Mohal Sandhara and the Collector had relied upon the sale deed Ext.P-1 of Mohal Lahari observing that it was relevant since no transaction had taken place in Mohal Sandhara. It was also observed by the learned District Judge that it had come in evidence that both these Mohals were almost similar and were situated side by side and earlier they were part of one Patwar Circle. Keeping in view the fact that no sale transaction of Mohal Sandhara was available, the Collector and the learned District Judge had considered the sale deed Ext.P-1 as relevant and on that basis had considered the market value of the land at the relevant time. Nothing has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments that the sale deed Ext.P-1 could not have been relied upon or how it was wrong and it appears that the appeal has been filed simply to assail the findings of the learned District Judge. I have considered the findings recorded by the learned District Judge, who has considered that since the developmental activities are being carried out in the State and the value of the land is increasing day by day and no evidence was led by the respondents in rebuttal, it was held that the petitioners are entitled to enhancement of compensation to the extent of 10% awarded by the Land - 5 - Acquisition Collector, in respect of the acquired land only. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 had relied upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 12.12.2008, passed in RFA No.85 of 2005, titled The General Manager, Ranjit Sagar (Thein Dam) Project versus Bhekri and others. A perusal of the said decision shows that in that case also an appeal was preferred by the present appellant against the award of the learned District Judge, Chamba in respect of the land acquired for the construction of reservoir for Ranjit Sagar (Thein Dam) Project in Mohal Sandhara, District Chamba. The learned District Judge had similarly enhanced the compensation to the extent of 10% and the learned Single Judge had considered various pleas and observed that the claimants were deprived of their constitutional rights, and practical and pragmatic approach should have been adopted by the State for the agriculturists belonging to the remotest area of the State. Accordingly, the findings of the learned District Judge were affirmed. The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge applies to the present facts also. No such pleas were raised as to how the reference was not made in time and as such the plea deserves to be rejected keeping in view the reasoning given by the learned District Judge and the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the other reference case cited above, whereby the compensation - 6 - was enhanced to the extent of 10% in respect of the acquired land by the learned District Judge, was held to be based upon correct reasoning. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned District Judge call for no interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly, alongwith costs. July 7, 2009. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.