Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1264 (HP)

LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR v. SURESH KUMAR

2009-12-10

V.K.AHUJA

body2009
JUDGMENT V.K. Ahuja, J.-This judgment shall dispose of the appeal filed by the appellants under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the award, dated 7.9.1998, passed by the learned District Judge, Solan, awarding compensation in favour of the respondents. Feeling aggrieved by the award passed by the learned District Judge in Land Reference Petition No.65-S/4 of 1992, the State has filed the present appeal on the ground that the learned trial Court has wrongly awarded the amount of Rs.48,000/- per bigha on flat rate for all categories of land and without appreciating the probable use of the land and its potential value. The other grounds on which the appeal has been preferred is that the learned trial Court has wrongly and illegally granted the interest to the petitioner from the date of possession i.e. 18.12.1968 at the rate of 9% for one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% till the date of payment of amount in the Court. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the land of the petitioners was acquired by the State of H.P. for the construction of a road known as Solan-Jaunazi-Dharja road. The road passes through the lands of 10 villages, namely, Sheeley, Sheel, Shamlog, Mashiwar, Bhajon, Fagon, Layan Kotla, Nehar, Bagur and Ser Banera. The road was constructed by the State of Himachal Pradesh without completing the acquisition proceedings. Some of the land owners filed writ petitions in this Court and a direction was issued by this Court to the State to complete the acquisition proceedings and pay full and final compensation to all the right holders on or before 31.8.1989. 3. The requisite notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 25.2.1989. It was duly published in H.P. Rajpatra on 15.4.1989 and was published in daily newspaper on 7.5.1989. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 11.11.1989. 4. The Collector entered into the reference and passed the award. He assessed the rate of land for kuhal category at Rs.10,745/-, per bigha, and granted the lowest rate of Rs.575/-for Ghasni, Toda, Gair Mumkin etc. categories of lands. 5. The petitioners being aggrieved by the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector filed reference petition under Section 18 of the Act before the Collector for making a reference to the District Judge for determination of the market value of the lands so acquired. categories of lands. 5. The petitioners being aggrieved by the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector filed reference petition under Section 18 of the Act before the Collector for making a reference to the District Judge for determination of the market value of the lands so acquired. The petitioners had claimed market value of the land at Rs.2.00 lacs per bigha. They further alleged that adequate compensation for the trees had not been awarded. The learned trial Court, on conclusion, disposed of the reference petitions and accordingly granted compensation to the land owners at the rate of Rs.48,000/- per bigha. The petitioners were also held entitled to compulsory acquisition charges, additional compulsory acquisition charges, interest etc. as provided under the law. 6. The present appeal has been filed by the State on the two grounds mentioned above. 7. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents and have gone through the record of the case. 8. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents had submitted that in an earlier appeal preferred before this Court by some of the residents of the village against the acquisition of the land for the same road and after considering the facts of the case, this Court had upheld that the market value of the land assessed as Rs.45,000/- per bigha was the correct market value as assessed by the learned District Judge and it did not call for any further enhancement. It is, therefore, clear that the rate of Rs.45,000/-, per bigha, was accordingly held to be the just value of the land at the time of acquisition. 9. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the compensation, as has been awarded in the case already decided by this Court along with consequential benefits should be granted to the present respondents. 9. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the compensation, as has been awarded in the case already decided by this Court along with consequential benefits should be granted to the present respondents. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that though the market value was assessed at Rs.48,000/- by the learned District Judge, but since in the referred case, as shall be discussed below, the land owners had filed appeals before this Court and the value of the land was held to be as Rs.45,000/-, per bigha, as against Rs.48,000/-, per bigha, granted by the learned trial Court in this case, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that they may be granted the same value as has been granted in the connected case since the findings were given by this Court for the same land acquired vide same notification. However, it was submitted that in that case, the learned trial Court had granted interest at the rate of 9% from the date of possession, which findings were upheld by this Court and, therefore, the respondents, in the present case cannot be treated differently and they should also be granted the interest from the date of possession and other consequential benefits, as awarded in the referred case, which findings were affirmed by this Court. There is substance in the plea raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. 10. The said judgment was passed in RFA No.134 of 1993, titled LAC and another versus Rajinder Kumar, decided on 10.11.2005 by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The said judgment was followed by this Court in RFA No.9 of 1999 and other connected matters, decided on 31.7.2009. The observations made in the said case are reproduced as under: “A perusal of the same shows that in thatcase also the land had been acquired for theconstruction of Solan-Jaunaji-Dharja Road,vide notification dated 30.9.1989 issued under Section 4 of the Act. The judgmentpassed by learned Single Judge is binding onthis Court and has to be followed. Moreover, the judgments passed by a Court inreference petitions filed under Section 18of the Act or on an appeal are binding andare relevant and are to be followed in other cases in which the land was acquired videsame notification issued by the State Government, provided the lands were in samevillage or of same quality. Moreover, the judgments passed by a Court inreference petitions filed under Section 18of the Act or on an appeal are binding andare relevant and are to be followed in other cases in which the land was acquired videsame notification issued by the State Government, provided the lands were in samevillage or of same quality. A perusal ofthe award dated 7.9.1998, in some of thecases, shows that the land was situated invillages Mashiwar, Bhajon and Fagon. A perusal of the award, dated 25.8.1998,passed by the learned trial Court in some ofthe cases, shows that the lands were situated in Villages Layan Kotla, Ser Baneraand Kotla. This reference has been made to show that while granting compensation to allthe petitioners in these cases, the learnedDistrict Judge has not come to anyconclusion that the land was different in these villages and has accordingly granted aflat rate for the land acquired in all the10 villages and, therefore, the petitionersare entitled to the same compensation. The said judgment is, therefore,relevant for the just determination of themarket value at the time of the acquisitionof the land and has to be followed. No reasons have been assigned as to why thesaid judgment passed by a learned SingleJudge of this Court should not be followedor is not applicable to the facts of thepresent case. Following the said judgmentpassed by the learned Single Judge of thisCourt in the above referred case, I am ofthe opinion that the appellants are entitledto the rate as granted by the Court atRs.45,000/-per bigha, along with other consequential benefits, including interest from the date of possession.A plea was raised by the learned Assistant Advocate General for the State during the course of arguments that the interest should be granted not from the dateof possession i.e. 25.2.1969, but from thedate of notification under Section 4 of the Act which was issued on 25.2.1989. It was further submitted that as per the decisionof the Apex Court, interest cannot be awarded before the date of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. Thus, it was submitted by the learned Assistant Advocate General for the State that the said part of the order passed bythe learned trial Court deserves to be modified. This was the only point raised bythe learned Assistant Advocate General for the State during the course of the arguments. Thus, it was submitted by the learned Assistant Advocate General for the State that the said part of the order passed bythe learned trial Court deserves to be modified. This was the only point raised bythe learned Assistant Advocate General for the State during the course of the arguments. On the above point, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants were that the appellants were entitled to the interest from the date of possession. The reason being that the judgment of the Apex Court was referred toby this Court in the above mentioned regularfirst appeal and the learned Single Judgehad clearly distinguished the judgment ofthe Apex Court and after referring to the judgment in detail, it had held that theappellants are entitled to the interest fromthe date of possession. This plea was considered by the learnedSingle Judge and the case law cited bylearned counsel for both the parties wasalso considered. I deem it necessary toreproduce below the submissions made in support of this plea and the reasoning givenby the learned Single Judge in the abovementioned regular first appeal: “The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted before me that the learned District Judge had erred in law in granting interest from 18.12.1968, the date on which the possession of the acquired land was taken by the Government(even prior to the date of the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act). Reliance was placed on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and another v.Special Land Acquisition Officer andanother, (2002) 1 SCC 142. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the claimants-respondents submitted before me that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Ishwar Dutt vs. Land Acquisition Collector & Anr., JT 2005 (6) SC 540 had set aside the order of this Court in RFA No.104 of 1993 vide which the order passed by the District Judge with regard to the payment of interest etc. had been set aside by this Court and the order passed by the District Judge was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. After hearing learned counsel and perusing the record, in my opinion, there is no force in the submission made before me by the learned counsel for the appellants. had been set aside by this Court and the order passed by the District Judge was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. After hearing learned counsel and perusing the record, in my opinion, there is no force in the submission made before me by the learned counsel for the appellants. I have gone through the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in JT 2005 (6) SC 540 (supra). The present case is fully covered by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ishwar Dutt’s case (supra) vide which the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court with regard to payment of interest etc. was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the order passed by the learned District Judge, regarding the date from which the interest was payable, was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ishwar Dutt’s case (supra), in my opinion, this Court cannot take a different view, since the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the present case had arisen out of the same notification vide which the land was acquired by the State Government for the construction of Solan-Jaunaji-Dharja Road. The learned District Judge in the award under appeals had passed a similar order as was passed by the learned District Judge in his award dated 1.9.1992, copy Ex.PW1/A and the same was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ishwar Dutt’s case (supra). In this view of the matter, in my opinion, no fault could be found with the award given by the learned District Judge, while giving the award under appeals. So far as the case (2002) 1 SCC 142 (Supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is concerned, in my opinion, the appellants cannot take any benefit of the same in the present appeals, considering that the present appeals and Ishwar Dutt’s case (supra) had arisen out of the same notification of the State Government under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the present appeals are covered by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in JT 2005(6) SC 540 (supra).” 11. I need not give any other reasoning for holding that there is no merit in the plearaised by the learned Assistant Advocate General for the State in view of the reasoning given by the learned Single Judgein the earlier judgment. The said judgment and the other judgments of the Apex Courtwere clearly considered by the learned Single Judge and it was finally held that the appellants cannot take any benefit ofthe case in Siddappa Vasappa Kuri (supra)since the present appeals had arisen out ofthe same notification of the State Government under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the present appeals arecovered by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ishwar Dutt versus Land Acquisition Collector and Another, JT 2005(6) SC 540.Once this question has been decided by this Court that the appellants were entitled tothe interest from the date of possession after referring to the various decisions of the Apex Court and the said judgment, to my mind, has attained finality since no appeal was filed by the State, therefore, the same is binding upon this Court. The said judgment was passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court and according to the submissions made at the Bar, there is nothing to show that any appeal was preferred by the State Government against the said judgment or the appeal is pending before the Apex Court or some stay order has been granted against the said judgment. Once the said judgment has been passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and the same has attained finality since no appeal was preferred against the said judgment, the same has to be followed by this Court and no contrary view can be taken by this Court. I am fortified by the view that since no review petition was also filed by the State Government against the said judgment, the said judgment has to be followed by this Court.” 12. The findings given by the learned Single Judges in both the above cases apply to the present facts also since the land was acquired vide the same notification. I accordingly hold that the appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed and the amount is reduced from Rs.48,000/-, as allowed by the learned trial Court, to Rs.45,000/-, but alongwith other consequential benefits as detailed above. I accordingly hold that the appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed and the amount is reduced from Rs.48,000/-, as allowed by the learned trial Court, to Rs.45,000/-, but alongwith other consequential benefits as detailed above. The Collector shall make the payment to all the respondents accordingly after making fresh calculations in view of the award passed by the learned District Judge in Reference Petition No.5-S/4 of 1992, dated 5.1.1993, and upheld by this Court in RFAs No.134 and 152 of 1993, on 10.11.2005. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.