Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 928 (HP)

KRISHAN GOPAL v. STATE OF H. P.

2009-10-29

V.K.AHUJA

body2009
JUDGMENT V.K. Ahuja, J.-This is a regular first appeal filed by the appellant under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, against the award passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla, dated 2.8.1999. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 17.7.1993 for acquisition of the land of the appellants and others, measuring 80.17 bigha, situated in Mauja Pateog, for construction of residential colony under the Interim Development Plan. The notification was duly published on 14.8.1993, 25.8.1993 and 26.8.1993. Out of the land acquired by the State Government, the land comprised in Khasra No.328, measuring 6 bigha, owned and possessed by the appellants, was also acquired. The Land Acquisition Collector entered into reference and vide his award, dated 27.6.1996, fixed the market price of the land at the rate of Rs.91,845/- per bigha, but he gave deduction of 40% on account of development charges and the market price was restricted to Rs.55,197/-. 3. The appellants preferred a reference petition under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation claiming that the market price of the land was more than Rs.10.00 lac per bigha as the area was already developed having all the facilities. The learned District Judge, vide his award, dated 2.8.1999, fixed the market price of the land at the rate of Rs.1,92,995/- per bigha. Being aggrieved, the appellants have come up in appeal before this Court for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 5. On appraisal of the grounds of appeal, it is clear that the grievance of the appellants was firstly that the learned District Judge had wrongly relied upon an award Ext.PX, dated 22.3.1999, vide which the reference petitions of other owners qua the land acquired vide the same notification, were decided by the learned District Judge and market value was assessed at Rs.1,92,954/- per bigha. It was pleaded that the reliance was wrongly placed upon the said award by the learned trial Court. It was pleaded that the reliance was wrongly placed upon the said award by the learned trial Court. It was also pleaded that the learned trial Court had ignored four sale deeds Exts.PW-1/A, dated 17.7.1992, PW-3/B, dated 20.8.1992, PW-4/A, dated 17.6.1992 and PW-4/B, dated 4.7.1992, holding that these sale deeds pertain to the period one year prior to the acquisition of the land and, therefore, they were wrongly ignored by the learned trial Court. 6. All these allegations were made in the grounds of appeal, but during the course of arguments, no such points were raised in regard to the assertions made in the grounds of appeal pertaining to the award or the sale deeds. Those points, therefore, do not arise for consideration since the judgment of the learned District Judge, dated 22.3.1999, pertained to the same notification issued vide which the land of the appellant and others was acquired. In regard to the sale deeds, no observations are being made since this plea was not raised during arguments. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants had relied upon the judgment of the Single Bench of this Court, dated 12.9.2008, vide which the reference petitions preferred by other persons pertaining to the same notification issued as in the present case and appeals were preferred by the persons whose lands were acquired. The learned Single Judge had granted compensation at the rate of Rs.3.20 lac per bigha. 7. No other point was urged. 8. It is, therefore, clear that the reliance has been placed only on this copy of the judgment and the submissions made were that once the appellants in that case have been granted compensation at the rate of Rs.3.20 lac per bigha since their lands were also acquired vide the same notification and are also in the same Mohal, it was submitted that to avoid any conflicting judgments, the appellants should also be held entitled to the compensation at the same rate as granted by the learned Single Judge of this Court in other appeals. 9. I have gone through the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in RFA No.33 of 2000, dated 12.9.2008, certified copy of which was also placed on the record by the learned counsel for the appellants during the course of arguments. 9. I have gone through the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in RFA No.33 of 2000, dated 12.9.2008, certified copy of which was also placed on the record by the learned counsel for the appellants during the course of arguments. From a perusal of this judgment, it is clear that the land of the appellants in that case was also acquired and a notification was issued for the whole land measuring 80.17 bigha on 17.7.1993 and by the same notification, the land of the present appellants had also been acquired. The lands of the appellants are contiguous and also fall in Mauja Pateog, as in the decided case. The learned Single Judge has also observed in the aforesaid case that the market value of the land acquired in Mauja Pateog in the year 1988 was assessed at Rs.2.20 lac per bigha at the time of acquisition. It was also observed by the learned Single Judge that the land in the present case also i.e. the case referred to above falls in the same Mauja and, therefore, once the value of the land in the year 1988 was Rs.2.20 lac, it is required to be revised by 10% every year. The learned Single Judge after referring to the judgments of the Apex Court had held that deduction of 50% made in that case by the court of the learned District Judge cannot be said to be proper and deduction of 20% was held to be appropriate. After considering the facts of the case, the case law and the deduction required to be made, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that for the land, the price should have been fixed at the rate of Rs.3.20 lac per bigha at the time of issuance of the notification in 1993. 10. After considering the facts of the case, the case law and the deduction required to be made, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that for the land, the price should have been fixed at the rate of Rs.3.20 lac per bigha at the time of issuance of the notification in 1993. 10. Therefore, considering the said judgment and to avoid conflicting judgments and also taking into consideration the fact that the land was acquired vide the same notification, situated in same Mohal and the lands are of similar nature, I am of the opinion that the rate granted by the learned Single Judge in the above case has to be granted to the appellants in the present case also, who are similarly placed and as such they will be entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs.3.20 lac per bigha at the relevant time, alongwith compulsory charges etc. to which the appellants had been held entitled to as per the judgment of the learned District Judge, as is clear from the relief clause. 14. The appeal filed by the appellants is accordingly allowed and they are held entitled to the enhanced compensation alongwith other charges, as detailed above. The amount shall be calculated by the Collector and shall be paid to the appellants within a period of four months from today. The appeal stands allowed accordingly. However, there is no order as to costs.