Research › Browse › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

1988 DIGILAW 16 (HP)

ONKAR CHAND v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

1988-05-16

KAMLESH SHARMA, R.L.KHURANA

body1988
JUDGMENT R. L. Khurana, J.: Since a common question of law and facts is involved in the above noted four regular first appeals, the "same are being disposed of by this single judgment. - . 2. Regular first appeals No. 113 and 123 of 1988 have arisen out of award dated 29.4.1988 of the learned District Judge, Una in land reference case No.51 of 1987, while regular first appeals No.128 and 129 of 1988 have arisen out of the award of the same date in land reference case No. 52 of 1987. 3. Land measuring 455 kanals 4 marlas of village Bharolian Khurd, Tehsil Una, came to be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for a public purpose, namely, for the construction of Broad - Guage Railway line from Nangal Dam to Talwara in pursuance of the notification dated 8.10.1984 (published on 20.10.1984) under Section 4 of the Act. Such requisition also included the lands of the appellants in Regular First Appeals No. 113 and 129 of 1988, hereinafter referred to as the claimants. 4. The Collector, Land Acquisition made his award under Section 11 of the Act on 18.8.1986. He assessed the market value of various categories of the acquired land as under:- Sr. No. Class of Land Rate per kanal 1. Barani and Abadi Rs.4500/- 2. Banjar Kadim Rs.2000/- 3. Other ghair mumkin Rs.1000/- 5. The acquired land belonging to the claimants was either Barani or Abadi. They were, therefore, awarded compensation at the market rate of Rs.4500/- per kanal. 6. Feeling dis-satisfied the claimants approached the Collector, Land Acquisition under Section 18 of the Act for reference to the court for the determination of market value of their acquired land by way of two separate petitions, which came to be registered as Land Reference case Nos.51 and 52 of 1987 respectively. 7. The learned District Judge vide two separate awards dated 29.4.1988 assessed the market value of the acquired land belonging to the claimants at the rate of Rs.24,000/- per kanal. 7. The learned District Judge vide two separate awards dated 29.4.1988 assessed the market value of the acquired land belonging to the claimants at the rate of Rs.24,000/- per kanal. In addition the claimants were granted:- (a) Compulsory acquisition charges at the rate of 30% of the market value assessed; (b) Additional compensation at the rate of 12% per annum on the market value assessed under Section 23 (1 -d) of the Act; and (c) Interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of possession till the date of payment of the enhanced amount. 8. Both the parties felt aggrieved by the awards of the learned District Judge. They have thus approached this court by way of the present appeals assailing the correctness of the market value assessed thereby. While the claimants claim that the market value of their acquired land was not less than Rs.50.000/- per kanal, the State has contended that the market value as assessed by the Collector, Land Acquisition was correct. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. 10. A perusal of the impugned awards of the learned District Judge shows that the same have been based primarily on the observations made by him during the course of spot inspection. 11. Rule 18 of Order 18, Code of Civil Procedure deals with the power of the court to carry out local inspections. The object of this provision is to enable the Court to understand the questions that are being raised and to follow and apply the evidence. The power to inspect has to be exercised only when the court feels that without inspection it would not be possible for it to assess the evidence and to dispose of the lis. The purpose of spot inspection is not to substitute the evidence led by the parties. This Court in Jagat Singh v. Badri Nath & ors., RSA No.54 of 1989 decided on 3.4.1997 following the ratio laid down by the apex court in Ugam Singh & anr. v. Kesrimal & ors., AIR 1971 SC 2540, has held that a judgment should not be passed solely on the basis of personal local inspection. 12. Therefore, the impugned awards are liable to be set-aside on this short ground inspection. 13. v. Kesrimal & ors., AIR 1971 SC 2540, has held that a judgment should not be passed solely on the basis of personal local inspection. 12. Therefore, the impugned awards are liable to be set-aside on this short ground inspection. 13. The claimants though during the proceedings before the learned District Judge in Land Reference Case 51 of 1987, tendered into evidence copies of three sale deeds Ex.P-13 to P-15 (such copies are marked as Ex.P-2 to P-4 in land Reference case No.52 of 1987) in order to prove the prevalent market value of the land in the vicinity of the acquired land, they did not examine either the vendees or the vendors of such instances of sale. Therefore, there was no legally admissible evidence before the learned District Judge for the determination of the market value of the acquired land. 14. The Apex Court in U.P. Slate Road Transport Corporation v. State of U.P. & ors., JT 1997 (4) SC 555 faced with a similar situation held that in the absence of vendor or vendee, there was no legally admissible evidence, therefore, the approach of the reference Court or that of the High Court in assessing the market value on the basis of sale instances was not correct. The matter was accordingly ordered to be remanded to the reference Court for disposal afresh after allowing the parties the opportunity to produce evidence afresh. 15. It may be mentioned here that the State also after producing copy of sale deed Ex.R-1 in evidence failed to examine either the vendor or the vendee thereof. 16. Therefore, there is no escape but to remand the cases to the learned District Judge for disposal afresh in accordance with law. 17. Resultantly, all the four appeals are allowed. The impugned awards of the learned District Judge are set-aside and the two land reference cases No.51 and 52 of 1987 are remanded to the learned District Judge, Una, for disposal afresh in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, as they may wish to produce, 18. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 30.6.1997. Since the cases pertain to the year 1987, the learned court below shall make all endeavour to dispose of the cases within six months from the date the parties put in appearance before it. 19. No orders as to costs. 20. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 30.6.1997. Since the cases pertain to the year 1987, the learned court below shall make all endeavour to dispose of the cases within six months from the date the parties put in appearance before it. 19. No orders as to costs. 20. Be it stated that since the cases are being remanded the parties would be entitled to refund of court fee affixed by them on the memorandum of appeal in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 of the H.P. Court Fees Act. May 16, 1997. (Kamlesh Sharma), (R. L. Khurana), Judge Judge. (rks) This judgment is being signed and pronounced by one of us (R. L. Khurana, J.) because the other member of the Bench, Honble Ms. Justice Kamlesh Sharma, J. is not available, being on long medical leave. However, his Lordships has agreed to the judgment and consented to its pronouncement.