Case: THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. KANSHI RAM

5. The Gram Panchayat, Namhol made a request to the appellants for construction of the road from Namhol to Bahadurpur. In view of the request made by the Gram Panchayat, the appellants have constructed the road from the village Tepra, Sub Tehsil Namhol, District Bilaspur. It is stated that for the above said purpose of construction of road, possession of the land was taken in the year 19886. When the possession of the land was taken for construction of the road, some of the owners of the land whose land was utilized for construction of road approached the High Court and filed writ petition in C.W.P.No.735 of 2004 complaining that their land was utilized for public purpose, without acquisition of land in accordance with law. Pursuant to directions issued by the High Court in the aforesaid writ petition, the appellants have initiated land acquisition proceedings, to acquire 18-15 bighas of land situated at Tepra village. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) was published in the Official C.A.Nos. @SLP (C ) No . 29319 of 2018 Gazette on 30.7.2005. After completing the necessary formalities the Land Acquisition Officer has passed a common Award dated 08.05.2007 by assessing the market value of the acquired land on the basis of classification of land as under:- Classification of land Rate per Bigha5. Khariyater & Banjer Rs.5,000.007. Not satisfied with the market rate fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, respondents-claimants have sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and their claims were referred to the District Court. The Reference Court on the basis of the material placed before it, enhanced the compensation by fixing uniform rate of Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha, for all categories of land, irrespective of classification, along with other consequential benefits as per the provisions of the Act8. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Reference Court fixing compensation of Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha, the appellants have preferred R.F.A.No.202 of 2011 and batch questioning the fixing of the market value of the C.A.Nos. @SLP (C ) No . 29319 of 2018 etc.etc. 7 acquired land by uniform rate of Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha. In the appeals preferred by the State, the respondents have preferred cross objections claiming interest from the date of taking possession to the date of publication of Section 4(1) Notification. By the impugned judgment the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla by a common judgment dismissed the appeals filed by the State and allowed the cross objections by awarding interest @ 15% per annum on the market value of the land fixed by the Reference Court, from 1.1.1989 till the date of Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act i.e. 30.7.2005. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, appellants have filed these appeals. The respondents-claimants also preferred appeals claiming interest by way of damages @ 15% per annum on the total compensation payable to the respondents, not merely on the market value as awarded by the High Court.

Reasoning:
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.