Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 673 (HP)

LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR v. PUSHPA DEVI

2010-04-05

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, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, filed by the appellants against the award in Land Reference Case No. 35-S/4 of 1992 and others, decided by the learned District Judge, Solan, on 25.8.1998. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the land of the petitioners and others were acquired by the State Government for construction of road known as Solan-Jaunaji-Dharja road in Dumber, 1968. This road passes through the lands of ten villages, namely, Sheely, Sheel Shamlog, Mashiwar, Bhajon, Fagon, Layan Kotla, Nehar, Bagur and Ser Baner. The road was constructed in the private land without completing the acquisition proceedings. Some of the residents filed writ petition before this Court and this Court directed the State to complete the acquisition proceedings and pay full compensation to the right holders. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued by the State on 25.2.1989. The Collector entered into reference and assessed the market value of the acquired land at the following rates:- 3. The petitioners and others filed Reference Petitions claiming that the market value of the land was Rs. 2 Lacs per bigha. The learned District Judge vide his impugned award in 20 cases held that the petitioners were entitled to the rate of Rs.48,000/-per bigha. On appeal by some of the petitioners, this Court vide its judgment in RFA No. 9 of 1999 titled Krishan Murari Vs. Land Sr. No. Kind of Land Rate per bigha 1. Kuhal Rs. 10,745/- 2. Bangar I Rs. 10,745/- 3. Bangar II Rs. 7,100/- 4. Bangar III Rs. 3,645/- 5. Banjar Kadim Rs. 1,725/- 6. Ghasni, Toda, Gair Rs. 575/-Mumkin etc. Acquisition Collector & another, alongwith other connected RFAs, decided the appeals vide judgment dated 31.7.2009 and held that the petitioners are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.45,000/-alongwith other consequential benefits. 4. All those appeals were decided in a common judgment passed by this Court. There is nothing on record to show that any appeal was preferred by the State Government against the said judgment and copy of the said judgment was given by the learned Deputy Advocate General during the course of arguments. 4. All those appeals were decided in a common judgment passed by this Court. There is nothing on record to show that any appeal was preferred by the State Government against the said judgment and copy of the said judgment was given by the learned Deputy Advocate General during the course of arguments. It was submitted by both the learned counsel for the parties that the case of the appellant is also covered by the said judgment, which has to be followed since the land was acquired by the same notification and judgment was passed by the learned District Judge in common in all these cases and no different rates can be given than the one in those appeals preferred against the award of the learned District Judge. There is substance in the plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Since this appeal is covered under the judgment passed by this Court in the above referred RFA No. 9 of 1999, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed and disposed of accordingly and the appellants shall also be entitled to market value at the rate of Rs.45,000/- alongwith other consequential benefits as granted in the said case. Certified copy of the judgment passed in RFA No. 9 of 1999 be placed on the record of this case by the Registry of this Court and accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of. Parties are left to bear their own costs.