Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 505 (HP)

Budhi Ram v. State of H. P.

2008-10-03

SANJAY KAROL

body2008
JUDGMENT (Sanjay Karol, J.) (Oral) - The present appeal arises out the impugned award dated 28th October, 2003, passed by the District Judge, Shimla, in Land Reference No. 2-S/4 of 2000, titled as Budhi Ram and others v. State of H.P. and others, enhancing the compensation payable to the claimants. 2.For the public purpose, namely, construction of Devgarh link road/appellants’/claimants/ 19 biswas of land, comprising of Khasra No. 611/341/1, situated at village Baggi, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, was acquired by the State of Himachal Pradesh, vide Notification published in the Gazette of Himachal Pradesh on 18th March, 1995, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Collector passed award No. SML 24/91, dated 6th March, 1997, awarding Rs. 3,985/- as compensation for the acquired land. Since the claimant had planted fruit and non-fruit bearing trees on the acquired land, compensation for the same was awarded separately, vide joint supplementary award No. 24/91, dated 24th November, 1997 and the Collector awarded a total sum of Rs. 28,947/- as compensation for the trees out of which amount payable to the claimants was Rs. 17,550/-. The solatium and other statutory benefits were also directed to be paid to the claimants. 3.Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, Land Reference Petition was filed by the claimants, under Section 18 of the Act, claiming (i) increase in the area; (ii) enhancement of compensation of land; and (iii) enhancement of compensation of plants. 4.The Court below, after appreciating the material on record, held that the claimants had not been able to sustainable their plea that the total acquired area was one bigha and not 19 biswas. With regard to the enhancement of the market value of the land, the Court did not rely upon the statements of Chet Ram (PW-2) and Karam Das (PW-4), who referred to and deposed with regard to the award Ex.PW-4/A, for the reason that the compensation awarded, in terms of the said award was composite both for the land and the trees. 5.With regard to the enhancement of compensation paid towards the plants, the Court, however, after referring to and relying upon a decision of this Court in Union of India v. Khajana Ram and others, 1998(1) Shim.L.C. 479, enhanced the compensation by five times and, thus, instead of Rs. 17,550/-, awarded a sum of Rs. 87,750/-, in addition to other statutory benefits. 17,550/-, awarded a sum of Rs. 87,750/-, in addition to other statutory benefits. 6.The claimants have assailed the award given by the District Judge. While making the submissions, Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the claimants fairly stated that with regard to the extent of land there is nothing on record from which it can be shown that the total acquired area was one bigha and not 19 biswas as determined by the Collector. 7.Even with regard to the enhancement of the market value of the land, from the record it is evident that except for award Ex.PW-4/A, there is nothing from which the market value of the land can be determined to be in excess of what stands awarded by the Court below. The following findings of the court below on this question are being referred to with approval : “11. With regard to the market value of Ghasni land, the claimants have relied upon the statement of Shri Chet Ram (PW-2) and Karam Dass (PW-4) alongwith copy of award (Ex.PW-4/A) for showing that the market value of Ghasni land was much more than Rs. 448/- per Bigha. It is claimed that the cost of the acquired land, which was also Ghasni in nature, be assessed as per award (Ext. PW-4/A)., which has been made with regard to the land in this very Chak for this very road. It is also pointed out that as PW-Chet Ram, had deposited that he was paid compensation at the rate of Rs. 26,000/- per Bigha, the claimants should be also paid compensation in respect of their acquired land at the same rate. However, both the statements of Chet Ram (PW-2) and the award (Ext. PW-4/A) cannot be available by the claimants for proving the market value of the acquired land. In both these cases, the claimants have been paid compensation by considering the price of the acquired land for both land and trees simultaneously and the awards have been made in a consolidated manner for the acquired land the trees standing thereupon. PW-4/A) cannot be available by the claimants for proving the market value of the acquired land. In both these cases, the claimants have been paid compensation by considering the price of the acquired land for both land and trees simultaneously and the awards have been made in a consolidated manner for the acquired land the trees standing thereupon. It was clearly admitted by PW-Chet Ram that his acquired land was having an apple orchard and the compensation was paid to him as apple orchard.” 8.On the question of enhancement of market value of the trees, from the record it is evident from Khasra Girdawaris, Ex.PX/1, Ex.PX/2 and Ex.PX/3, and Jamabandi for the year 1988-89, Ex.PX-4, that the acquired land was recorded as “Bagicha Ghasni”. The record also reveals that 30 apple bearing and five non-apple bearing plants were also uprooted for which supplementary award, dated 25th November, 1997, was issued by the Collector. The award itself records that the assessment was got carried out from the Horticulture/Forest Department of the State. It is not in dispute that the said assessment was carried out on the basis of the Harbans Singh formula, followed by the State of Himachal Pradesh for carrying out the assessment of the market value of the plants (fruit bearing and non-fruit bearing. Shri Jawahar Kaith (PW-3) has proved Ex.PW-3/A, which is a copy of the Consumer Price Index showing the percentage of increase in the price between the year 1960 upto 1995. It is also not in dispute that while assessing the market value, Harbans Singh formula as applied to the claimants based its value on the Price Index pertaining to the year 1966. As per Ex.PW-3/A, the increase in the Consumer Price Index from the 1966 upto the year 1995, at the State level, is by 885 per cent. 9.The Court below has referred to and relied upon Khajana Ram’s case (supra), while enhancing market value of the trees by five times. Importantly, Khajana Ram (supra) dealt with the acquisition pertaining to the year 1988 when the increase in the Consumer Price Index was by 402 per cent. 10.Admittedly, the land owner is entitled to obtain compensation as per market value of the land as it existed at the time of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Importantly, Khajana Ram (supra) dealt with the acquisition pertaining to the year 1988 when the increase in the Consumer Price Index was by 402 per cent. 10.Admittedly, the land owner is entitled to obtain compensation as per market value of the land as it existed at the time of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In Kanwar Singh v. Union of India, 1998(8) S.C.C. 136, it was held that while, fixing such market value of the acquired land at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act, things to be considered were at what price parties were ready to sell and purchase the land. Guidelines in this behalf were also stressed in Pameshwari Devi v. P.S.E.B., AIR 1994 S.C. 1142. 11.The claimants, poor farmers, who had been deprived of their land, have to be paid such compensation which is just, fair and reasonable. In my view, the compensation ought to have been enhanced by atleast ten times, as in Khajana Ram’s case (supra), which pertained to the acquisition of the year 1988, compensation was enhanced by five times, whereas in the present case, the acquisition proceedings pertaining to the year 1995, the Price Index has gone up by more than 850 per cent. Ordered accordingly. 12.The impugned award is accordingly modified. The appeal is allowed and it is ordered that the claimants shall be entitled to compensation for the trees (fruit bearing and non-fruit bearing) at Rs. 17,550x10=Rs. 1,75,500/-. Needless to add, the claimants shall be entitled to all other statutory benefits, as have been awarded by the Court below. The present appeal is disposed of accordingly. M.R.B. ———————