Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1202 (HP)

LAC v. Sundroo

2014-09-05

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2014
Judgment Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. This judgment shall dispose of this appeal and also the connected appeals arising out of the common award passed on 5.5.2008 by learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan under challenge therein. 2. Respondents herein are petitioners as they preferred reference petitions under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in the Court below for enhancement of the compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Collector, HPPWD, Sirmaur and Solan Districts in respect of their holdings acquired for construction of Yashwantnagar-Dhamla-Neripul road. Petitioners are holdings in the said village. The appellant-State, respondent in the Court below proposed to construct Yashwantnagar-Dhamla-Neripul road in District Sirmaur. 3. In order to acquire land for construction of the road, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 23.6.1995. The same was published in H.P. Rajpatra on 15.7.1995. The Collector Land Acquisition on hearing the objections etc. and on compliance with all codal formalities announced award No.38/2000 on 31.7.2000 and assessed/awarded the compensation of the land acquired at the flat rate of Rs.50,000/-per Bigha irrespective of its nature and category. In a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, after holding full trial, has redetermined and re-assessed the compensation payable to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per bigha irrespective of the nature and category of the acquired land vide common award, which is under challenge in these appeals. 4. The legality and validity of the impugned award has been assailed on the grounds inter alia that learned Additional District Judge has enhanced the evidence available on record and also that the market value of the acquired land irrespective of its nature and category could have not been assessed as Rs.2,00,000/-per bigha. 5. The record reveals that on the pleadings of the parties, the following common issues were framed in all the petitions by the Court below:- 1. Whether the compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector is inadequate. If so, what is just and adequate compensation? 2. Relief. 6. Shri Amar Nath, petitioner in reference Petition No.6-N/4 of 2004, has stepped into the witness box as PW-1. He produced in evidence the Sale Deeds Ex.PW-1/B to Ex.PW-1/H, Khaka Dasti Ex.PW-1/J and PW-1/K, copy of award passed by learned District Judge qua the land acquired for the same purpose in village Neri Jagela, Ex. 2. Relief. 6. Shri Amar Nath, petitioner in reference Petition No.6-N/4 of 2004, has stepped into the witness box as PW-1. He produced in evidence the Sale Deeds Ex.PW-1/B to Ex.PW-1/H, Khaka Dasti Ex.PW-1/J and PW-1/K, copy of award passed by learned District Judge qua the land acquired for the same purpose in village Neri Jagela, Ex. PW-1/L, statements qua average market price of the land for the year 1997-98 Ex.PW-1/M, for the year 1998-99 Ex.PW-1/N and for the year 2001-02 Ex. PW-1/O. Land acquisition Collector has not assessed the market value of their acquired land correctly. PW-3 is Madan Singh, Patwari, Patwar Circle, Matiana. He has proved the Khaka Dasti Ex.PW-1/J as it is he who prepared the same. 8. On behalf of the respondent-State, copy of Sale Deed Ex.R-1 has been produced by learned Government Pleader in his statement recorded separately. No other and further evidence was produced. 9. Learned Additional District Judge has not taken into consideration the sale instances pertaining to the period 1998-99 produced in evidence vide sale deed Ex.PW-1/B to Ex.PW-1/H to assess the market value of the acquired land and rightly so because the notification under Section 4 of the Act with respect to the acquisition of the land in question was issued well before such sale instances having been executed. It is worthwhile to mention here that on issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the price of the land otherwise also experienced manifold increase. The sale instance Ex.P-8, no doubt, is dated 11.1.1994 i.e. immediately before issuance of the notification under situated in adjoining village Nai-Neti has been sold for a sum of Rs.16,500/-. Learned trial Court, however, has not thought it proper to place reliance on this claim also being a sale instance of small piece of land measuring two biswas whereas the acquired land is a big chunk of land. The average sale price statements Ex.PW-1/M, Ex.PW-1/N and Ex.PW-1/O produced in evidence by the petitioners have also not been relied upon for want of other supporting evidence viz revenue officials/officers, who have prepared the same not examined. 10. Above-all these documents pertain to the market values of the land in village Neri Jagela and not qua the land situated in village Dhanech-Shayaghat and that too for the period 1997 to 2001, after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. 11. 10. Above-all these documents pertain to the market values of the land in village Neri Jagela and not qua the land situated in village Dhanech-Shayaghat and that too for the period 1997 to 2001, after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. 11. Learned Additional District Judge has placed reliance on an award Ex.PW-1/L announced by learned District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan on 25.8.2005 with respect to the land acquired in village Neri Jagela for construction of the same road i.e. Yashwantnagar-Dhamla-Neripul road. PW-1 Amar Nath and PW-2 Sewa Ram while in the witness-box had stated that their village Dhamech-Shayaghat, where the acquired land situated of the land prevailing in village Neri Jagela and the acquired land is the same and similar. The respondent-State has failed to controvert such evidence produced by the petitioners as learned Government Pleader has tendered sale Deed dated 15.10.1994 Ex.R-1 alone in his own statement and not produced any other and further evidence. Learned District Judge has assessed the market value of the acquired land situated in village Neri Jagela at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per Bigha after taken into consideration the evidence produced in that case. 12. True it is that the sale instance Ex.R-1 pertains to village Dhamech-Shayaghat and is of 15.10.1994 i.e. immediately before issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act and also that land measuring 1-8 bigha has been sold thereby for a sum of Rs.6,000/-. Learned Additional District Judge has rightly ignored this document for the reason that the Land Acquisition Collector has also not taken into consideration the same as the Collector has assessed the market value of all categories of land acquired for construction of the road including that situated in village Neri Jagela at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per bigha. Therefore, the market value of the land as per Ex.R-1 is much-much below as compared the same, therefore, is of no help to the case of the respondent-State. 13. On the other hand, the award Ex.PW-1/L, passed by learned District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan in respect of the land situated in Village Neri Jagela and acquired for the construction of the same road is the result of the appreciation of the evidence produced in that case and as per this award the market value of the acquired has been assessed as Rs.2,00,000/- per Bigha. Since PW-1 Amar Nath and PW-2 Sewa Ram, while in the witness box have deposed about the similarity in the nature, quality and potentiality of the land situated in both villages i.e. Neri Jagela and Dhamech-Shayaghat and there is no evidence produced in rebuttal thereto on behalf of the respondent-State, therefore, the Court below has not committed any illegality and irregularity in assessing the market value of the land of the petitioners situated in village Dhamech-Shayaghat acquired for the same public purpose, namely construction of Yashwantnagar-Dhamla-Neripul road as Rs.2,00,000/- per Bigha. This Court, in RFA No.225 of 2003, titled State of H.P. versus Sewak Ram and its connected matters, has dismissed the appeals preferred against a common Nai-Neti and acquired for the same purpose, vide judgment dated 9th March, 2004 and affirmed the market value of the land whereby the compensation was assessed as Rs.2,00,000/- per Bigha. 14. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 24.9.2008, passed in RFA No.302 of 2007, titled State of H.P. versus Sewa Ram and its connected appeals, in which the land was also acquired for the same public purpose, has dismissed the appeals and upheld the market value of the acquired land assessed as Rs.2,00,000/- per bigha by learned Additional District Judge while placing reliance on the judgment rendered by another co-ordinate Bench in Sewak Ram’s case cited supra. Therefore, ratio of the judgments rendered by two coordinate Benches of this Court are against the respondent-State. 15. The reappraisal of the given facts and circumstances and also the evidence available on record, therefore, lead to the only conclusion that learned Additional District Judge has appreciated the evidence available on record in its right perspective while enhancing the compensation from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- per Bigha in respect of the acquired land. The award under challenge, therefore, cannot be said to be illegal or perverse, the same rather is legally and factually sustainable and deserves to be upheld. 16. Resultantly, all the appeals fail and the same are accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any shall also stand disposed of.