Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1059 (HP)

LAC, HP PWD, KULLU v. GRAM PANCHAYAT, MANALI

2009-11-16

DEV DARSHAN SUD

body2009
JUDGMENT Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral)-Both these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as they relate to the same acquisition and the same notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The facts which are not disputed are that the land of the petitioners was situated in Phati Nasogi and was acquired for the purpose of construction of the Dungri Nasogi road. 3. After completing the statutory requirements under Sections 4, 6 and 9 of the Act, the Collector made his award granting compensation to the petitioners to the extent of Rs.1,40,000/-per bigha in both the reference petitions, subject matter of these appeals and which were consolidated and tried with two other reference petitions. 4. The petitioners in both the petitions under Section 18 of the Act claimed higher compensation for the value of their land, fruit trees, damage to their other land holdings and trees. The learned reference Court, on consideration of the entire evidence on record, awarded compensation @ Rs.2,20,000/-per bigha and on the other issues where the petitioners claim enhancement for fruit trees, damage to the land etc., learned Court dismissed their claims holding that evidence on record was insufficient to establish the claims for higher compensation. The State is now in appeal against the judgment of the learned reference Court, challenging it basically on the ground that there was insufficient evidence and that the instances relied upon by the learned trial Court of sale deeds, namely Exts. P-1, P-5, PW6/A, PW-5/A, PW-4/A and PW-2/A were incorrect as they were small chunks of land and could not be made basis for award at the rate at which the Court has awarded compensation. It was also urged by the learned Additional Advocate General that Exts. RA, RB and RC reflect the true value of the land and the compensation requires to be scaled down accordingly. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I cannot persuade myself to accept the submissions made by the learned Advocate General. It was also urged by the learned Additional Advocate General that Exts. RA, RB and RC reflect the true value of the land and the compensation requires to be scaled down accordingly. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I cannot persuade myself to accept the submissions made by the learned Advocate General. The learned Reference Court while arriving at the conclusion that the value of the land was Rs.2,20,000/-per bigha, took into consideration the fact that the land of the petitioners herein was situated near Manali town, a very fast growing tourist destination, popular throughout India and that these lands were suitable for being used for profitable commercial purpose(s) viz: construction of hotels and other supportive tourist facilities. The learned Court also placed reliance on the award of the Additional District Judge, Kullu Ex.P-6 in respect of the land acquired for the same road, namely Dhungri Nasogi road. The Court also notes that award Ex. P-6 had become final and there was nothing on record to show or indicate that it had been varied or set aside in appeal. In addition, the oral testimony of the petitioners in both cases, including sale deeds were also used as a basis for determining the value of the land. 6. I do not find any evidence on record to show that the land as acquired in Ex. P-6 is in any manner different from that which is the subject matter of the present appeals. Rather, the evidence on record suggests that it is valuable land, same and similar in nature to the land, subject matter of the earlier reference petition Ext. P-6. It was undisputed before the learned Reference Court that the land was situated near Manali town, though not in the heart of Manali and in these circumstances, could be put to profitable/ commercial use. 7. The submissions made by the learned Advocate General that the sale instances were of small pieces of lands and could not be equated with large chunks, cannot be accepted, more so when the land is having a high commercial potential / value. I do not find any error in the reference Court making an award on a uniform basis for the land irrespective of the quality as it has been acquired for the purposes of construction of a road. 8. No other point has been urged before me. 9. I do not find any error in the reference Court making an award on a uniform basis for the land irrespective of the quality as it has been acquired for the purposes of construction of a road. 8. No other point has been urged before me. 9. There is, thus, no merit in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed. Pending applications shall also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.