Research › Browse › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 119 (HP)

BACHNA RAM v. STATE OF H. P.

1998-07-15

D.RAJU, KAMLESH SHARMA

body1998
JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J.: Both these appeals (R.F.As. No. 1 and 25 of 1991) are being disposed of by a common judgment as these arise out of the same impugned award dated 17.7.1990 whereby Reference petitions of the appellants-claimants were allowed along with four other Reference petitions and the market value of the acquired land was determined at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per bigha for Bangar I & II, Rs. 12,000/- for Bangar III and Rs. 10,000/- for Ghasni, Charand, Banjar Kadeem -and Gair Mumkin. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the amount of enhancement by the District Judge, the appellants-claimants have preferred these appeals and claimed market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per bigha irrespective of the kind of the land. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the lands of the appellants-claimants were acquired for the public purpose of establishment of Housing Colony at Datyar, Tehsil Kasuli, District Solan by Notification dated 8.4.1980 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called as the Act.) After holding enquiry under Section 11 of the Act, Land Acquisition Collector gave his award on 22.10.1982 under Section 12 of the Act and the following market value of the land was determined : . Bangar Awal Rs. 10,000/-per bigha Bangar Doem Rs. 7,600/- per bigha Banjar Kadeem Rs. 5,000/-per bigha Ghasni, Gair mumkin and Charand Rs. 3,000/- per bigha. 4. Having not been satisfied with the market value of the acquired laid determined by the Land Acquisition Collector, the appellants-claimants have filed Reference petitions under Section 18 of the Act, which was allowed by the impugned award after trial. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants claimants has vehemently urged that the market value of the acquired land determined by the District Judge is mainly based on his quiss work on the basis of his observations made during the course of the spot inspection that the acquired land is situated on the National Highway and many industrial units have come op, besides the establishment of Farwanoo township in the vicinity. Learned counsel further submits that the District Judge has gravely erred in not taking into consideration two important documents Ex. PX and PY, which were tendered in evidence by the appellants-claimants. Ex. Learned counsel further submits that the District Judge has gravely erred in not taking into consideration two important documents Ex. PX and PY, which were tendered in evidence by the appellants-claimants. Ex. PX is the copy of the award dated 17.12.1987passed \y the Additional District Judge, Solan and Sirmaur Districts at Solan, whereby the market value of another piece of land was determined at Rs. 20,000/- per bigha irrespective of the kind of the acquired land, which was also acquired by the same Notification dated 8.4.1980 under Section of the Act, whereby the lands in question of these appeals were acquired. The award Ex. PX has become final as the appeal preferred against it was dismissed by this Court in limine by order dated 28.4.1988 (Ex. PY). Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has urged that the award Ex. PX and order Ex .PY were the best evidence for determining the market value of the acquired land in the absence of any other evidence on record . We find substance in this submission. No doubt, the District Judge w«g flight in not relying upon the sale transactions Ex.Pl to Ex.P4 produced by the appellants-claim ants on the ground that there was no evidence on record to show that the land, which was the subject matter of these sale transactions was similar to the acquired land. Moreover, we find that neither the vendors nor the vendees nor any other evidence connected with the sale transactions were produced to prove their So far as the sale transaction ExR1toEx R4 produced by the respondents are concerned, these were rightly not taken into consideration as the market value of these sale transactions was much lower to the market value offered by the Land Acquisition Collector. These could also be rejected for the same reason that neither the vendors nor the vendees nor any other evidence connected with these sale transactions were produced. In view of this, the only evidence worth reliance for determination of the market value of the acquired land was the award Ex.PX of the Additional District Judge and the order Ex. PY of this Court. 6. Learned Advocate General opposing these appeals has urged that these documents Ex. In view of this, the only evidence worth reliance for determination of the market value of the acquired land was the award Ex.PX of the Additional District Judge and the order Ex. PY of this Court. 6. Learned Advocate General opposing these appeals has urged that these documents Ex. PX & PY were simply tendered in evidence and no evidence was produced to connect them to the acquired land, as such, these Could not be relied upon for determining the market value of the acquired land. For making his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme m/W Singh & Ors. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, AIR 1993 S.C. wherein in paragraph 5, the learned Judge of the Supreme Court have held that: ".........for a judgment relating to value of land to be admitted in evidence either as an instance or as one from which the market value of the acquired land could be inferred or deduced, must have been a previous judgment of Court and as an instance, it must have been proved by the person relying upon such judgment by adducing evidence aliunde that due regard being given to all attendant facts and circumstances, it could furnish the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land." 7. In that judgment, the learned Judge of the Supreme Court have categorically held that a judgment of a Court determining the market value of the land in the vicinity of the acquired land, even though not inter parties could be admitted in evidence either as an instance or one from which the market value of the acquired land could be, deduced or inferred. 8. This legal position is further reiterated in Meharban & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., (1997) 6 S.C.C. 54. and Koran Singh & Ors. v. Union of India, (1997) 8 S.C.C. 186, wherein the Ld. Judges have taken a step further by extending it to the awards of the Land Acquisition Officer, besides the judgments of the Courts. 9. IN Karan Singhs case (supra) in paragraph 8 of the judgment, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court have reproduced with approval paragraph 5 of the judgment in. Pal Singhs case (supra). 10. Judges have taken a step further by extending it to the awards of the Land Acquisition Officer, besides the judgments of the Courts. 9. IN Karan Singhs case (supra) in paragraph 8 of the judgment, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court have reproduced with approval paragraph 5 of the judgment in. Pal Singhs case (supra). 10. Relying upon the ratio of the judgments of the Supreme Court, we have no hesitation to hold that normally claimants must give evidence aliunde to prove that the land, which is subject matter of the awards or the judgments on which they place reliance, is similar or identical to the acquired land under consideration. But so far as the present case is concerned, no objection was taken at the time of production and. exhibition of documents Ex. PX and PY. Otherwise also, mere perusal of these documents shows that these pertain to the lands, which were acquired by the same Notification dated 8.4.1980 under Section 4 of the Act, whereby the land in question was acquired and the award given-by the Land Acquisition Collector pertains to the acquired land as well asjhe lands of those documents Ex. PX and Ex. PY. Therefore, in this case, no separate evidence was required to be produced by the appellants -claimants to prove that the lands of these award and order were identical as that of acquired land. 11. Is this view of the matter, we hold that the District Judge has gravely erred in not relying upon these two documents (Ex. PX & PY) which could form the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land. Relying upon these documents, we hold that the market value of the acquired land is Rs. 20,000/- per bigha irrespective of its kind. 12. In the result, the present appeals are accepted and the impugned award of the District Judge, Solan, is modified in these terms. The appellants- claimants will also be entitled to statutory solatium and interest on the enhanced amount of compensation. Both these appeals are disposed of. No order as to costs.