Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 674 (HP)

PRATIBHA KUMARI v. STATE OF H. P.

2010-04-05

V.K.AHUJA

body2010
JUDGMENT V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral)-This is an appeal filed by the original appellant Rameshwar Chand, now represented by his legal representatives, appellants No. 1 to 5(b) under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the award dated 30.11.1996 passed by the learned District Judge, Sirmour at Nahan, in Land Reference Case No. 6-N/4 of 1996, vide which the petition filed by the original appellant under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 2. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent and the appeal was admitted. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants were that the learned trial Court has not granted adequate compensation to the appellant and the market value as on the date of the issuance of the notification was not rightly determined by the learned trial Court. 5. I have gone through the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. According to the record, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 7.10.1991.Therefore, the market value of the land has to be determined as on that date. No copies of sale deed prior to the date of issuance of the notification were placed on record before the learned trial Court. Therefore, the learned trial Court had considered the sale deeds Ext. R-1 to R-6 executed during the period from January, 1992 to August, 1992. It was concluded by the learned trial Court that the comparative rate of the land sold comes to Rs.200 to Rs.300/-per square metre. The learned trial Court had also considered another transaction vide which the land measuring 100 square metres was sold at the rate of Rs.530/-per square metres in an open auction conducted per order of the Court. It was accordingly held that keeping in view the transactions that had taken place after more than one year of the date of the issuance of the notification and open auction had also taken place after more than one year, accordingly, the market value was fixed at Rs.300/- per square meter. It was accordingly held that keeping in view the transactions that had taken place after more than one year of the date of the issuance of the notification and open auction had also taken place after more than one year, accordingly, the market value was fixed at Rs.300/- per square meter. So far as the sale transactions are concerned, these were for lesser amount and transactions had taken place after about one year or so and still the Court has enhanced the market value to Rs.300/- per square metre. In regard to auction, it was rightly held that it was for a small piece of land and said rate cannot be said to be basis whereas the acquired land is a big chunk measuring 2837.84 square metres. Some concession had also to be made keeping in view the fact that the transactions had taken place more than one year of the issuance of the notification. Therefore, no infirmity can be found on the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court that the market value of the land per square metre was Rs.300/-. No other material is on record to consider the market value as on the date of the issuance of the notification and as such, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellants. However, it is clarified that the appellants shall be entitled to interest as permitted by law from the date of the issuance of the notification and not from the date of possession. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the possession was taken earlier and appellants be granted interest from date of possession. The interest is payable only from the date of issuance of the notification as held by the Apex Court in Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, (2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 142, and accordingly, the appellants shall be entitled to interest from the date of the issuance of the notification. In case, the possession has been taken prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act, the appellants are entitled to file a civil suit/exhaust the remedy before the Civil Court, if permissible in accordance with law. 7. The appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed. In case, the possession has been taken prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act, the appellants are entitled to file a civil suit/exhaust the remedy before the Civil Court, if permissible in accordance with law. 7. The appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed. The Land Acquisition Collector shall calculate the amount and make payment to the appellants within a period of four months from today, if the amount has not been paid so far. Parties to bear their own cost.