Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1377 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Tara Dutt

2011-03-17

SURINDER SINGH

body2011
JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J The appellants felt aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Reference Court in case No. 20 of 1998, dated 19.4.2002, whereby the amount of compensation was enhanced over and above the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector and the interest was awarded from the date of possession or Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 in short ‘the Act’ whichever is earlier. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the land comprising Khasra No.183/158/1 measuring 01 bigha, situated in village Seu (Talai), Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, hereinafter to be referred as the ‘land in question’ was acquired by the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, for the construction of ‘Talai-Deot Sidh’ road. Admittedly, the possession of the land in question was taken by the appellants in the year 1985. It was thereafter, the State Government through the Land Acquisition Collector, (LAC) issued the Notification under Section 4 of the Act, on 10.5.1996. Thereafter LAC issued the other Notifications viz under Sections 6 and 9 of the Act, ultimately passed the Award on 13.12.1996, whereby he allowed the compensation to the tune of `45,375/- on the basis of classification of the land besides solatium and the interest, as aforesaid. 3. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, namely Bhagat Ram did not feel satisfied with the award of the LAC as such, he preferred a reference petition under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of the compensation stating that land in question was a ‘cultivable land’ but in the revenue entries, it was wrongly shown to be as ‘Khadyatar’. 4. In reply, the State-appellants contended that the claimant aforesaid was awarded the adequate compensation by the LAC. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, learned Reference Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhanced amount of compensation on account of the market value of the acquired land, if so, to what extent and amount? …OPP. 2. Relief. 6. To support its case, besides examining himself, the claimant also examined PW-2 Gian Parkash, who earlier was posted a Kanungo at Bilaspur. Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhanced amount of compensation on account of the market value of the acquired land, if so, to what extent and amount? …OPP. 2. Relief. 6. To support its case, besides examining himself, the claimant also examined PW-2 Gian Parkash, who earlier was posted a Kanungo at Bilaspur. He admitted his signatures on the copy of statement of the compensation Ex.PA qua other land having better quality of land acquired for the same purpose and testified that the compensation of the said acquired land was assessed on the basis of quality of land as ‘Barani Deom’, as per the entries in the ‘Misal Hakiat’, thus, the total amount of compensation calculated to the tune of `2,70,084.43. He also stated that in the instant case, nature of the land in question was recorded as ‘Khadyatar’, thus compensation was reduced, but if the rate of ‘Barani Deom’ is applied to it, the compensation would be at `2,70,084/-per Bigha. 7. PW3 Jaishi Ram also stated that the land in question was being cultivated by the claimant. Besides this, the claimant also examined PW4 Roshan Lal, who had sold his 0-4 biswas land for a consideration of `15,000/- and the said land was situated at a distance of about 1½ K.M. from the land in question. He proved Sale Deed Ex.P7, whereas PW5 Fazaldeen had sold 0-2 biswas of land for a consideration of ` 10,500/- vide Sale Deed Ex.P8 and the quality of the land was equal to the land in question. The learned Reference Court took the notice of the above evidence, thus assessed and awarded the market value of the acquired land at `5,000/- per biswas i.e. ` 1,00,000/- per Bigha and awarded the statutory interest as aforesaid. 8. Shri A.K.Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General did not press as having been given the higher value for the land in question by the reference court, but he confined his argument to the rate of interest and the manner in which it was awarded by the learned Reference Court from the date of its possession w.e.f. the year 1985 as against the notification issued under Section4 of the Act on 10.5.1996 9. I have examined the point taken. 10. I have examined the point taken. 10. It is clear from Section 23(1-A) of the Act that the starting point for the purposes of calculating the amount to be awarded thereunder, at the rate of 12% per annum on the market value, is the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The terminal point for the purpose is either the date of the award or the date of taking possession, whichever is earlier. In the present case, possession of the land having been taken prior to the publication of Notification under Section 4 of the Act, as aforesaid, the terminal is not available. The only available terminal is the date of the award as held in Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and another vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another [ (2002) 1 SCC 142 ]. 11. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court referred above, the appeal filed by the State is partly allowed and the interest as awarded against the relief clauses (a) and (c) by the reference court is hereby modified to the extent that the respondents shall be entitled for the statutory interest with effect from 10.5.1996, the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Act. 13. No other points urged or pressed. 14. Parties are left to bear their own costs.