Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 100 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Shankar Dass

2008-03-24

KULDIP SINGH

body2008
JUDGMENT (Kuldip Singh, J.) - This judgment shall dispose of RFA Nos. 414, 415, 416, 417 and 418 of the 2006, arising out of Land Ref. Pet. No. 11 of 2002, Land Ref. Pet. No. 7 of 2002, Land Ref. Pet. No. 8 of 2002, Land Ref. Pet. No. 9 of 2002 and Land Ref. Pet. No. 10 of 2002 respectively decided by learned District Judge, Bilaspur by common award dated 5.7.2006. 2.The facts in brief are that Public Works Department Himachal Pradesh for acquiring land in village Namhol, for public purpose for construction of Rajghat-Sai-Magzin road issued notification on 21.3.1995 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), which was published in the official Gazette on 22.4.1995. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short Collector) announced the award No. 21 of 1998 on 24.11.1998 and assessed the market value of the acquired land as per classification as follows :- Variety of Land—Rate per Bigha Kohali Awal—Rs. 51,000/- Kohali Doem—Rs. 46,500/- Anderli Awal—Rs. 37,500/- Anderli Doem—Rs. 28,250/- Bahrli Awal—Rs. 18,750/- Bahrli Doem—Rs. 9000/- Banjar Kharyatar—Rs. 4,500/- 3.Some of the land owners were aggrieved by the market value assessed by the Collector, therefore, they filed reference petitions under the Act for assessing the market value and enhancement of compensation of the acquired land. The details of reference petitions and lands involved in the reference petitions are as follows :- Sr. No.Land Ref. Pet. No.Name of PartyKhasra No.AreaClassification 1.11 of 2002Shankar Dass v. L.A.C.194/1, 225, 190/1, 0-2 BighaBaharli Awal/ Kharyatar 2.7 of 2002Sehaj Ram v. L.A.C. 170/10-6 BighaBanjar Kadeem 3.8 of 2002Durga Ram v. LA.C.175/1, 175/3, 176/1, 182/12-1 BighaKharyatar/Banjar 4.9 of 2002Hem Raj v. L.A.C.181/1, 189/11-11 BighaKharyatar/Bahrali Awal 5.10 of 2002Mast Ram v. L.A.C.171/1, 171/32-15 BighaBanjar/Kharyatar 4.The aforesaid five reference petitions were contested by the Collector and were consolidated vide order dated 9.6.2003 passed by learned District Judge in Land Ref.Pet. No. 11 of 2002. The following issues were framed by learned District Judge in the reference petitions :- 1. Whether the Collector, Land Acquisition has inadequately assessed the market value of the land under acquisition and fruit bearing and non-fruit bearing tree situate therein ? OPP 2. Whether the State had occupied the land under acquisition 13 years prior to issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act, as alleged, if so, with what effect ? ....OPP 3. Whether the Collector, Land Acquisition has inadequately assessed the market value of the land under acquisition and fruit bearing and non-fruit bearing tree situate therein ? OPP 2. Whether the State had occupied the land under acquisition 13 years prior to issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act, as alleged, if so, with what effect ? ....OPP 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the amount of compensation for 13 years prior to issue of notification under Section 14 of the Act ? 4. Relief. 5.The learned District Judge vide common award dated 22.8.2000 has decided all the reference petitions and assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 6,000/- per biswa or Rs. 1,20,000/- per bigha. The learned District Judge has allowed 12% amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act, 30% solatium, interest at 9% per annum for one year and thereafter 15% per annum as per the impugned award. The State and Collector are in appeal against the impugned award. 6.I have heard Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General for the appellants in all the appeals and Mr. T.S. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the respondents and gone through the record. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the learned District Judge had erred in a relying award Ex.PX for determining the market value of the acquired land. The Collector has rightly assessed the market value of the acquired land and was in a better position to understand the facts as the Collector had an opportunity to inspect the spot. The learned District Judge has not appreciated the evidence properly and has drawn wrong conclusion from the evidence. The learned Counsel for the respondents in all the appeals has supported the impugned award. He has submitted that award Ex.PX pertains to acquisition of land in an adjacent village and therefore, learned District Judge has rightly relied award Ex.PX for assessing the market value of the acquired land. 7.PW-1 Sohan Lal is the vendee of sale deed Ex.PW-1/A. PW-2 Parkash Chand, Patwari has proved the list Ex.PW-2/A of fruit bearing and non-fruit bearing trees which were found on acquired land at the time of acquisition. PW-3 Sunka Ram, Patwari has stated that Khasra Nos. 194/1, 225/190/1, 189/1, are Bahrali Awal, Khasra Nos. 7.PW-1 Sohan Lal is the vendee of sale deed Ex.PW-1/A. PW-2 Parkash Chand, Patwari has proved the list Ex.PW-2/A of fruit bearing and non-fruit bearing trees which were found on acquired land at the time of acquisition. PW-3 Sunka Ram, Patwari has stated that Khasra Nos. 194/1, 225/190/1, 189/1, are Bahrali Awal, Khasra Nos. 170, 182/1 and Khasrea No. 171/1 are Banjar Kadeem and Kharyatar, Khasra Nos. 175/1, 176/1, are Baharli Doem, Khasa No. 181/1 is Kharyatar. These Khasra Numbers are not irrigated. PW-4 Shankar Dass has stated that his land was acquired for construction of Rajghat-Sai-Magzin-Silha-Trivenighat Road. The road was constructed in the year 1986 and possession was taken at that time. The National Highway-88 passes through their village Namhol, the villages Ghial and Namhol have common boundary, his land is better then the land situated in village Ghial. At the time of acquisition the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 10,00,000/- per bigha, his father has sold one biswa land vide sale deed Ext.PW-4/A for Rs. 25,000/-. PW-5 is the vendee of one biswa land of sale deed Ext.PW-5/A. On behalf of the land owners, their counsel has tendered in evidence copy of award dated 22.8.2000 Ex.PX. DW-1 Roshan Lal Kaundal, JE has produced copy of sale deed Ext.R-1. In cross-examination he has stated that National Highway-88 passes through the acquired land and thereafter it goes to village Sai. He has also stated that National Highway-88 passes through village Namhol and acquired land is also situated in village Namhol. 8.The sale deed Ex.PW-1/A is dated 26.5.1995, sale deed Ex.PW-4/A is dated 1.5.1995, sale deed EX.PW-5/A is dated 26.5.1995 and sale deed Ex.R-1 is dated 10.8.1990. The sale deeds Ex.PW-1/A, Ex.PW-4/A,Ex.PW-5/A pertain to lands situated in village Namohl, sale deed Ex.R-1 is of land situated in village Tyaman. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in gazette on 22.4.1994. The sale deeds Ex.PW-1/A, Ex.PW-4/A and Ex.PW-5/A were executed after the publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. As per sale deed Ex.PW-1/A two biswas land was sold for Rs. 62,000/-, vide sale deed Ex.PW-4/A, one biswa land was sold for Rs. 25,000/- and vide sale deed Ex.PW-5/A one biswa land was sold for Rs. 35,000/-. The sale deeds Ex.PW-1/A, Ex.PW-4/A and Ex.PW-5/A were executed after the publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. As per sale deed Ex.PW-1/A two biswas land was sold for Rs. 62,000/-, vide sale deed Ex.PW-4/A, one biswa land was sold for Rs. 25,000/- and vide sale deed Ex.PW-5/A one biswa land was sold for Rs. 35,000/-. These sale deeds have been rightly not relied by the learned District Judge for assessing the market value of the acquired land, these sale deeds have been executed after publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. As per sale deed Ex.R-1 four bighas land was sold for a consideration of Rs. 11,000/- on 10.8.1990 in village Tyaman. The sale deed Ex.R-1 has been produced by RW-1 Roshan Lal Kaundal, J.E. in his statement. The vendor and vendees of sale deed Ex.R-1 have not been examined. No material has been placed on record to show that the acquired land is comparable to the land covered by sale deed Ex.R-1. The sale deed Ex.R-1 is of village Tyaman whereas the acquired land is situated in village Namhol. The learned District Judge has rightly not relied the sale deed Ex.R-1 for assessing the market value of the acquired land. Now, only award Ex.PX is left on record for assessing the market value of the acquired land. 9.The acquired land is situated in village Namhol which has been admitted by RW-1. PW-4 Shankar Dass has stated that village Ghial and village Namhol have common boundary and his land is better then the land situated in village Ghial. Ex.PX is the copy of common award dated 22.8.2000 passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur in ten land reference petitions. In award Ex.PX the learned District Judge has assessed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 6000/- per biswa or Rs. 1,20,000/- per bigha. There is no other material on record to assess the market value of the acquired land. The lands involved in award Ex.PX were acquired under notification published on 27.9.1995 and issued under Section 4 of the Act. In the present case, the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the gazetted on 22.4.1995. These both the notifications under Section 4 of the Act have close proximity of time. The lands involved in award Ex.PX were acquired under notification published on 27.9.1995 and issued under Section 4 of the Act. In the present case, the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the gazetted on 22.4.1995. These both the notifications under Section 4 of the Act have close proximity of time. The village Ghial is adjacent to village Namhol, therefore, award Ex.PX is relevant for assessing the market value of the acquired land in the present case also. In Krishan Yachendra Bahadurvaru v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 869, the Apex Court has held that the estimation of market value in many cases must depend largely on evaluation of many inponderables and hence it must necessarily to be to some extent a matter of conjecture or guess. The Apex Court in ONGC Ltd. v. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel and others, 2005(6) Supreme Court Cases 454 has held that in the absence of any direct evidence on the said point, the court may take recourse to other methods viz. judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisition of lands made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages. In the present case the award Ex.PX is of adjacent village of the land which was acquired almost at the same time when the land was acquired in the present case, therefore, award Ex.PX can be safely relied for assessing the market value of the acquired land. The learned District Judge has rightly relied award Ex.PX for assessing the market value of the acquired land and no fault can be found for assessing the market value of the acquired land on the basis of award Ex.PX of adjacent village. The other payments such as 30% solatium, enhanced amount at the rate of 12% under Section 23(A) and interest at the rate of 9% and 15% have also been awarded by the learned District Judge correctly. The appellant have failed to make out any case for interference. 10.No other point was urged. 11.The result of the above discussion, all appeals being RFA Nos. 414, 415, 416, 417 and 418 of 2006 are dismissed and award dated 5.7.2006 passed by learned District Judge in Land Ref. Pet. No. 11 of 2002, Land Ref. Pet. No. 7 of 2002, Land Ref. Pet. No. 8 of 2002, Land Ref. Pet. No. 9 of 2002 and Land Ref. Pet. 414, 415, 416, 417 and 418 of 2006 are dismissed and award dated 5.7.2006 passed by learned District Judge in Land Ref. Pet. No. 11 of 2002, Land Ref. Pet. No. 7 of 2002, Land Ref. Pet. No. 8 of 2002, Land Ref. Pet. No. 9 of 2002 and Land Ref. Pet. No. 10 of 2002 is upheld in each appeal. No costs. M.R.B. ———————