Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1271 (HP)

L. A. C. v. INTERNATIONAL RORICK MEMORIAL TRUST

2009-12-11

DEV DARSHAN SUD

body2009
JUDGMENT Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral)-All these three appeals are being disposed of together as they arise out of a common award which has been made by the learned Reference Court. The land of the claimants-respondents was acquired for the purpose of construction of Naggar-Sharan and Rumsu Pulga Road. It is also undisputed before me that land of the petitioners is situated in Village Sharan, Phati and Kothi Naggar, Tehsil & District, Kullu, H.P. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued on 17.10.1994. 2. Sixteen land reference petitions under Section 18 of the Act filed by various land owners were disposed of by the learned Reference Court by a common judgment on the same evidence. The learned Reference Court awarded Rs.75,084/- per bigha for the acquired land. 3. In support of the contentions before the learned Reference Court, Sh. Amar Chand appeared as PW-1 and he stated on oath that the acquired land situated in Phati-Naggar and it was acquired by the State for construction of the road as detailed in the notification. He stated that prior to the acquisition of this land, land of the same Village was acquired for the purpose of construction of Recorchric-Gallery Road. The award made by the Reference Court for this acquisition is Ext.PC which he has made basis for the present award. On the sale transactions brought on record, the learned Reference Court has not relied upon the sale instances Ext.PA, Ext.PB and Ext.PC proved by the petitioners, nor Ext.RA, Ext.RC, Ext.RE, Ext.RG and Ext.RJ, to prove the sale transaction on the ground that the vender and vendee have not been produced in the Court by the petitioners. This finding of the learned Reference Court cannot be accepted as this requirement is no longer mandatory. (See: State of Haryana vs. Ram Singh (2001) 6 SCC 254, Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer vs. V. Narasaiah (2001) 3 SCC 530 and Cement Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Purya & Ors. (2004) 8 SCC 270). 4. It has not been proved either by the State or by the petitioner that the land pertaining to the sale instances brought on record is the same including for construction of road and commercial purpose. (2004) 8 SCC 270). 4. It has not been proved either by the State or by the petitioner that the land pertaining to the sale instances brought on record is the same including for construction of road and commercial purpose. Merely tendering of the sale deeds in evidence is not sufficient for establishing either the potentiality of the land or the value of the land or similarity in advantages with the acquired land. (See: Mandal Revenue Officer’s case and Cement Corporation of India’ case supra). The submissions of the learned Advocate General, therefore, that these sale instances are the true value of the land cannot be accepted. 5. On the question as to whether any error has been committed by the learned Reference Court in non-relying upon Ext.PC, I do not find that award on the basis of lump-sum be said to be not justified. The land was acquired for the purpose of construction of a road, where the agricultural quality of the land cannot be made the basis for the award. The award, therefore, cannot be faulted with. 6. There is, thus, no merit in the submissions made by the learned Advocate General and the appeals are accordingly rejected. 7. My attention has also been drawn to the decision of this Court in CMP(M) Nos.666/2003, 667/2003, 668/2003, 669/2003, 670/2003, 671/2003, 672/2003, 675/2003, 676/2003, 678/2003, 680/2003 and 681/2003 in RFA No.41 of 2004, which arising out of the same reference judgment with respect to the land of other land holders acquired for the same road. This Court while disposing of these petitions, held the value of the award made by the District Judge was in accordance with law, therefore, dismissed by this Court by a judgment dated 23rd February, 2004. 8. I see no reasons to interfere with the award. These appeals are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.