Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1087 (HP)

DHANNO DEVI v. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR

2009-11-19

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2009
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral)-These three appeals are being disposed of by a common JUDGMENT since common questions of law and fact arise in these appeals. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the State of Himachal Pradesh issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act which was published in the H. P. State Rajpatra on 20.6.2001 whereby land, including land of the appellants, was acquired for construction of Mattan Sidh – Hamirpur bye-pass road. The notification with which we are concerned deals with revenue/estate village Dulehra, Mauza Bajuri, Tehsil and District Hamirpur. The Land Acquisition Collector after issuing notice assessed the value of the land at Rs.9,000/- per marla. Dissatisfied by the same, the petitioners claimed enhancement of the market value. After trial the learned District Judge has assessed the market value at Rs.11,000/- per marla and has awarded other statutory benefits in terms of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. The appellants claimed that the value of the land has not been properly assessed and have filed the present appeal, claiming enhancement. 3. I have heard Shri Jitender P.Ranta learned vice counsel for the appellants and Shri RajeshMandhotra, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. 4. The main grouse of the petitioners is that the sale deeds and award produced by them have not been taken into consideration by the learned District Judge. According to them if these are taken into consideration, the value of the land should be enhanced from Rs.11,000/- per marla to Rs.20,000/- per marla. 5. The claimants-petitioners examined PW-1 Jagan Nath Sharma, Registration Clerk, who has proved on record sale deed Ext.PW-1/A and Ext.PW-1/B. Petitioner has also placed reliance on an award Ext.P-4. The learned District Judge has not relied upon these pieces of evidence on the ground that the petitioners have not led any evidence to show the similarity in the location, size and shape and potentiality of the acquired land with the land which is the subject matter of these documents. 6. Ext.PW-1/A is a registered sale dated 12.9.2000, whereunder 118.24 sq.mtrs. of land was sold by Saula and Kalasho to Neelam Kumari and Kashmiro Devi for a sum of Rs.2,36,000/-. This works out to Rs.38,302/- per marla. The land which is the subject matter of Ext.PW-1/A is not situate in village Dulehra which is the village of the appellants but in village Chaula Khurd. of land was sold by Saula and Kalasho to Neelam Kumari and Kashmiro Devi for a sum of Rs.2,36,000/-. This works out to Rs.38,302/- per marla. The land which is the subject matter of Ext.PW-1/A is not situate in village Dulehra which is the village of the appellants but in village Chaula Khurd. No doubt, the sale deed in terms of time is relevant but no evidence was led to show that the land which was subject matter of the sale deed Ext.PW-1/A and situate in village Chaula Khurd is similar to the acquired land. No evidence has been led to show what is the distance of the acquired land with the land which is the subject matter of Ext.PW-1/A. Their relative distances from the National High-way have also not been proved on record. 7. Similar is the position with regard to Ext.PW-1/B. By this sale deed only 5.85 sq. mtrs. of land was sold by one Sheela Devi in Up Mahal Hamirpur to Sumiti Parkash Gautam for a sum of Rs.22,500/-. Rate per marla works out to Rs.73,808/-. No evidence has been led to show what is the distance of the land subject matter of Ext.PW-1/B viz-a-viz the acquired land. Ext.P-4 is an award which relates to village Chaula Khurd. Again no evidence has been led to show how this land stands in comparison with the acquired land. 8. It is well settled law that the position of a petitioner who files a petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is similar to that of a plaintiff in a civil suit. He must lead evidence to prove the value of the land acquired. No doubt, the sale deeds can be exhibited and it is not now necessary to examine the vender/vendee. However, some evidence must be led to show what is the nature, location, classification of the land which is the subject matter of the sale deeds/awards relied upon in comparison to the acquired land. It is for the petitioner to lead such evidence. If no such evidence is led then the petition must fail. The learned District Judge was absolutely right in not relying upon these instances of sale since the petitioner did not lead any evidence to prove these aspects. It is for the petitioner to lead such evidence. If no such evidence is led then the petition must fail. The learned District Judge was absolutely right in not relying upon these instances of sale since the petitioner did not lead any evidence to prove these aspects. It would be pertinent to mention that the instances and the award relied upon by the petitioners relate to different villages even though they fall in one Mauja Bajuri. When the villages are different it is all the more necessary for the petitioners to lead some evidence which can be used to rely on the sale deeds. 9. Despite the fact that the petitioners had not led any evidence the learned District Judge enhanced the compensation from Rs.9,000/- to Rs.11,000/- per marla only on the ground that the land had been acquired for construction of Bye-pass road which would show that the acquired land is near Hamirpur town. Since there is no other evidence to establish the value of the land, I have no other option but to dismiss the appeals. Appeals are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.