Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 322 (HP)

COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION v. HOTAM RAM

2010-02-23

V.K.AHUJA

body2010
JUDGMENT V.K. Ahuja, J.-This is a Regular First Appeal filed by the appellants under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the award of the Court of learned District Judge, Kullu, dated 1.1.2004, passed in Land Reference Petition No. 27/2002. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the land of the respondents, hereinafter referred to as the petitioners was acquired by the State of Himachal Pradesh for public purpose namely for the purpose of construction of Ramshila-Bijli-Mahadev Road Phati Kharahal, Tehsil and District Kullu. The land was acquired measuring 7-3-4 Bighas. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 5.6.1995, which was duly published in the newspapers. The proceedings were initiated thereafter and the Land Acquisition Collector entered into Reference and passed the award vide his order dated 4.6.1997. The Land Acquisition Collector granted the rates per bigha for different categories of land as under:- 3. The market value of the whole land was assessed at Rs.1,95,800/-. Apart from this, solatium at the rate of 30% and additional interest was also granted by the Land Acquisition Collector. 4. Aggrieved by the said award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, the petitioners preferred Reference Petition in the Court of District Judge. The learned District Judge vide his impugned award dated 1.1.2004 assessed the market value of the land at Rupees Three Lacs Per Bigha and accordingly allowed the Reference Petition alongwith solatium and interest etc. as admissible under the provisions of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Reference Petition by the Court of learned District Judge, Kullu, the State has come up in appeal against the said award. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 7. The first submission made by the learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellants was that the learned trial Court had wrongly assessed the market value of the land at the rate of Rupees Three Lacs Per Bigha irrespective of the quality. It was submitted that the learned trial Court had considered the sale transaction relied upon by the petitioners and had wrongly ignored the sale transaction proved in evidence by the appellants and as such, those findings are liable to be set aside. 8. Coming to the above point, the learned District Judge has referred to the sale transactions Exts. It was submitted that the learned trial Court had considered the sale transaction relied upon by the petitioners and had wrongly ignored the sale transaction proved in evidence by the appellants and as such, those findings are liable to be set aside. 8. Coming to the above point, the learned District Judge has referred to the sale transactions Exts. PW1/A to PW1/C and held that these pertain to small portion of land, therefore, they cannot be made basis for determining the market price of the land. A perusal of Ext. PW1/A sale deed dated 17.12.1991 shows that the land measuring 2 Biswas was sold for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-. Ext. PW1/B sale deed dated 27.6.1992 shows that the land measuring 3 Biswas was sold at Rs.1,80,000/-. A perusal of Ext. PW1/C shows that the land measuring 2 Biswas 10 Biswances was sold for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. These sale deeds have been proved by PW-1 Ishwar Dass, vendor, who had executed these sale deeds Exts. PW1/A to PW1/C. The average value of the land comes to Rs.60,000/-Per Biswa per Exts. PW1/A to PW1/C, that means, the rate per bigha comes to Rs.60,000/- x 20,000/- = Rs.12,00,000/-. These were ignored by the learned trial Court keeping in view the area of the land sold in question, which was small. These had been executed 2-3 years prior to the issuance of the notification and could have been considered keeping in view the increase also. 9. However, the learned trial Court had not considered the sale instances Exts. RA, RC, RE, RG and RK pertaining to the years 1995 to 1997 proved in evidence by the appellants. Ext. RA shows that the land measuring one bigha was sold vide sale deed dated 14.6.1994 for Rs.12,000/-. Ext. RC a copy of sale deed dated 16.2.1995 shows that the land measuring 2-5-13 Biswas/Biswances was sold for Rs.50,000/-. Ext. RE is a copy of sale deed dated 2.8.1994 which shows that the land measuring 0-4-0 bigha was sold for Rs. 7,500/-. Ext. RG is a copy of sale deed dated 30.8.1994, which shows that the land measuring 3-13 Bighas was sold for Rs.42,000/-. Ext. RJ is also a copy of sale deed dated 16.2.1995 vide which the land measuring 2 Bigha 14 Biswas 16 Biswances was sold for Rs.80,500/-. 7,500/-. Ext. RG is a copy of sale deed dated 30.8.1994, which shows that the land measuring 3-13 Bighas was sold for Rs.42,000/-. Ext. RJ is also a copy of sale deed dated 16.2.1995 vide which the land measuring 2 Bigha 14 Biswas 16 Biswances was sold for Rs.80,500/-. All these sale deeds were ignored by the learned trial Court on the ground that the vendor or vendee had not been examined in support of these transactions. But according to the decision of Apex Court in Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer Vs. V. Narasaiah, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1117, it was held that certified copies of the sale deed relating to similar land situated in vicinity can be relied upon without examining vendee or vendor or anybody else connected with the sale. It is not necessary to examine the vendor or vendee, though they can prove the purpose of the land sold, but the sale deed can be looked into in case it is proved in evidence. However, a perusal of the impugned award shows that the learned District Judge had made reference to three awards passed by the same Court, in which the compensation was granted at the rate of Rupees Three Lacs per bigha when the land was acquired vide the same notification. The copies of award referred to are Ext. P-11 dated 31.8.2002, Ext. P12, Ext. P-13 decided on 18.9.2000 and Ext. P-15 dated 31.7.1998, in which rate granted was Rupees Three Lacs per bigha. Ext. P-11 shows that the land was acquired vide the same notification, while vide Ext. P-13 and Ext. P-15, the land was acquired vide different notifications for construction of other road i.e National Highway-21 bye-pass vide Ext. P-13 and vide P-15, it was Kullu-Manali left Bank Seobagh bye-pass road. Therefore, the award passed in Ext. P-11 is Sr. No. Kind of land Market value per bigha. Bathal dom Rs.38,629/- Bathal som Rs.19,314/- gair mumkin Bagicha bathal Rs.7,944/ relevant which shows that the land was acquired and compensation was granted at the rate of Rupees Three Lacs per bigha when the land was acquired vide the same notification. 10. The learned District Judge had granted the same rate as awarded in these petitions. 11. Bathal dom Rs.38,629/- Bathal som Rs.19,314/- gair mumkin Bagicha bathal Rs.7,944/ relevant which shows that the land was acquired and compensation was granted at the rate of Rupees Three Lacs per bigha when the land was acquired vide the same notification. 10. The learned District Judge had granted the same rate as awarded in these petitions. 11. The learned counsel for the respondents had placed on record certified copy of the judgmentpassed by this Court in the appeals preferred by the State against the judgment of learned District Judge, Kullu, in which also, the land was acquired vide same notification for construction of Ramshila-Bijli-Mahadev road. The learned Single Judge of this Court had considered the facts and had concluded that the learned District Judge has considered the market value on the basis of the awards and the rate granted was upheld. To avoid conflicting judgment, it is necessary that same decision should be applied to the present facts. The learned Deputy Advocate General during the course of arguments was not able to point out any infirmity in the award passed by the learned District Judge or that for any reasons, the judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be followed in this case on the ground that the land was of different quality or so. Therefore, the award made by the learned District Judge granting the compensation at the rate of Rupees Three Lacs per bigha does not call for any interference and the findings recorded by the learned District Judge are required to be upheld. The petitioners/respondents are also entitled to solatium as granted by the learned trial Court. 12. However, it has been pointed out by the learned Deputy Advocate General that the learned trial Court has granted interest from the date of taking of possession, though according to law laid down by the Apex Court, it has to be granted from the date of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. 13. Reliance has been placed upon the decision in Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, (2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 142, in this regard and according to the said decision of the Apex Court, the interest is payable from the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and not prior to the said date or from the date of taking of possession. 14. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, (2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 142, in this regard and according to the said decision of the Apex Court, the interest is payable from the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and not prior to the said date or from the date of taking of possession. 14. Keeping in view the above law laid down by the Apex Court, it is clear that the petitioners were entitled to the interest at the rate of 9% from the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act on 5.6.1995 till the date of deposit and as such, the impugned award passed by the learned District Judge is liable to be corrected only to this extent. The amount shall be calculated by the Land Acquisition Collector and shall be payable to the respondents within a period of four months from today. 15. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed in regard to the interest. The parties are left to bear their own costs.