Case: THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. KANSHI RAM

compensation @ Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha basing on the sale deed Ex.PW-1/A of small chunk i.e. 1 biswa of land and granted abnormal hike in the market value of the acquired land. It is also brought to our notice that the Ex.PW-1/A dated 24.11.2004 is the land sold by PW-2 Garja Ram to PW-3 Kuldip for a consideration of Rs.50,000/- for one biswa of land. It is submitted that PW-2 Garja Ram is also one of the claimants in the acquisition proceedings. It is submitted by the learned counsel that having regard to total extent of 18-15 bighas of land which was under acquisition, the Reference Court should not have relied on Ex.PW-1/A for fixing the compensation @ Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha. It is also submitted that though the appellants have produced a comparable sale under sale deed Ex.RA dated 04.05.2001 under which 4-51 bighas of land situated in village Dabar Paragana Bahadurpur Tehsil Sadar District Bilaspur was sold but the same was not considered without assigning any valid reasons. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the High Court committed an error in awarding damages @ 15% per annum on the market value of land, from the date of taking possession to the date of notification.11. On the other hand it is submitted by Sri B.S. Banthia, learned counsel for the respondents that the lands of the respondents-claimants who were all small farmers were taken possession in the year 1988 and they are not paid the market value of their lands by the appellants. It is submitted that in absence of any other comparable sale in the village, the Reference Court and the High Court rightly considered the document Ex.PW-1/A and fixed the compensation for the acquired land @ Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha. It is further submitted that though the land under sale deed Ex.PW-1/A was sold at the rate of Rs.10.00 lakhs per bigha, but the Reference Court after deducting 30% has fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha. It is submitted that there is no merit in the appeals preferred by the State. Further it is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the possession of the land in question was taken as early as in the year 1988 and only after directions were issued in the writ petition in C.W.P.No.735 of 2004, Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 30.07.2005. It is submitted that the High Court while awarding additional interest @ 15% per annum has committed error in awarding such interest only on the market value of the land fixed by the Reference Court, instead of total compensation payable to the respondents-claimants. 12. At the outset it is to be noted that even according to the case of the respondents-claimants possession of the land in question was taken in the year 1988 for constructing the road and only after directions were issued in C.W.P.No.735 of 2004 Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act came to be issued on 30.07.2005. The Land Acquisition Officer after collecting necessary material, has passed a common Award on the basis of the classification of the land. The Land Acquisition Officer has categorized the land into 5 categories of the land and fixed Rs.61,666.00 for Andrali Aval, Rs.51,666.00 for Andrali Doem, Rs. 41,666.00 for Baharli Aval, Rs. 20,000.00 for Baharli Doem and Rs.5,000.00 for Khariyater & Banjer. 13. Not satisfied by the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents sought reference under Section 18 of the Act which was referred to the District Court. The Reference Court has fixed the compensation by awarding uniform rate at Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha based on the Ex.PW-1/A dated 24.11.2004. 14. At this stage it is to be seen that C.W.P.No.735 of 2004 must have been filed in the first quarter of the year 2004 and Ex.PW-1/A is dated 24.11.2004. Under the sale deed Ex.PW-1/A only one biswa of land was sold by PW-2 Garja Ram to PW-3 Kuldip, for a consideration of Rs.50,000/-. It is not in dispute that PW-2 Garja Ram is also a claimant in the land acquisition proceedings in the impugned judgment. When the total land admeasuring 18-15 bighas of land was acquired, the Reference Court and the High Court committed error in accepting document in Ex.PW-1/A, as a comparable sale for the purpose of fixing the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha. As no other documentary evidence is available on record and further in view of the allegation of the appellants that the sale deed in Ex.RA dated 04.05.2001 under which 4-51 bighas of land in adjoining village was sold in the year 2001, is not considered without assigning valid reasons, we are of the view that these appeals filed by the State are to be allowed by remitting the matter for fresh consideration by the Reference/District Court. As much as PW-2 is the vendor under Ex.PW-1/A, who is no other than one of the claimants in the land acquisition proceedings, such sale could not have been considered as a comparable sale for the purpose of fixing the market value of large extent of land i.e. 18-15 bighas. We are of the view that the Reference Court has committed error in relying on such document for fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha. If no other comparable sales are available in the same village it is always open to the Reference Court to consider sales in the adjoining villages during the relevant period. Even otherwise there are other methods for fixing the compensation. Such erroneous fixation of market value at the rate of Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha as fixed by the Reference Court, ought not to have been approved by the High Court. As such we are of the view that the appeals filed by the State deserve to be allowed, by remitting the cases to the Reference Court for fresh adjudication.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 1

Reasoning from the judgment:
1[ds]12. At the outset it is to be noted that even according to the case of the respondents-claimants possession of the land in question was taken in the year 1988 for constructing the road and only after directions were issued in C.W.P.No.735 of 2004 Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act came to be issued on 30.07.2005. The Land Acquisition Officer after collecting necessary material, has passed a common Award on the basis of the classification of the land. The Land Acquisition Officer has categorized the land into 5 categories of the land and fixed Rs.61,666.00 for Andrali Aval, Rs.51,666.00 for Andrali Doem, Rs. 41,666.00 for Baharli Aval, Rs. 20,000.00 for Baharli Doem and Rs.5,000.00 for Khariyater & Banjer13. Not satisfied by the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents sought referenceunder Section 18 of the Act which was referred to the District Court. The Reference Court has fixed the compensation by awarding uniform rate at Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha based on the Ex.PW-1/A dated 24.11.200414. At this stage it is to be seen that C.W.P.No.735 of 2004 must have been filed in the first quarter of the year 2004 and Ex.PW-1/A is dated 24.11.2004. Under the sale deed Ex.PW-1/A only one biswa of land was sold by PW-2 Garja Ram to PW-3 Kuldip, for a consideration of Rs.50,000/-. It is not in dispute that PW-2 Garja Ram is also a claimant in the land acquisition proceedings in the impugned judgment. When the total land admeasuring 18-15 bighas of land was acquired, the Reference Court and the High Court committed error in accepting document in Ex.PW-1/A, as a comparable sale for the purpose of fixing the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha. As no other documentary evidence is available on record and further in view of the allegation of the appellants that the sale deed in Ex.RA dated 04.05.2001 under which 4-51 bighas of land in adjoining village was sold in the year 2001, is not considered without assigning valid reasons, we areof the view that these appeals filed by the State are to be allowed by remitting the matter for fresh consideration by the Reference/District Court. As much as PW-2 is the vendor under Ex.PW-1/A, who is no other than one of the claimants in the land acquisition proceedings, such sale could not have been considered as a comparable sale for the purpose of fixing the market value of large extent of land i.e. 18-15 bighas. We are of the view that the Reference Court has committed error in relying on such document for fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha. If no other comparable sales are available in the same village it is always open to the Reference Court to consider sales in the adjoining villages during the relevant period. Even otherwise there are other methods for fixing the compensation. Such erroneous fixation of market value at the rate of Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha as fixed by the Reference Court, ought not to have been approved by the High Court. As such we are of the view that the appeals filed by the State deserve to be allowed, by remitting the cases to the Reference Court for fresh adjudication.