Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1281 (HP)

Ramesh Kumar v. State of H. P.

2014-09-17

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2014
Judgment Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. This judgment shall dispose of all the three appeals arising out of the land acquisition proceedings qua the land acquired for the same public purpose, i.e., construction of Yashwant Nagar-Dhamla road in District Sirmaur. RFA No.294 of 2007 2. The petitioners-claimants are the appellants. Their land situate in village Maloh Mashog has been acquired for construction of the road, namely Yashwant Nagar-Dhamla. They are aggrieved from the award under challenge in this appeal, whereby learned Additional District Judge has re-determined and awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.29,984/- per bigha with respect to all categories of acquired land. RFA No.150 of 2007 3. The State aggrieved by the award under challenge in this appeal, whereby compensation at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per bigha has been assessed and awarded with respect to all categories of acquired land belonging to the respondents-claimants in village Shargaon, with a prayer to quash and set aside the same. RFA No.299 of 2007 4. In this appeal also, the State aggrieved by the award under challenge, whereby compensation at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per bigha with respect to all categories of land situate in village Shargaon for the construction of the same road, has been assessed and awarded by learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, has made a prayer to quash the same. 5. The facts common in all the three appeals are that the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’) was issued on 8.9.1998 and published in HP Rajpatra on 12.10.1998 qua acquisition of the land including that of the petitioners-claimants situate in villages Maloh Mashog and Shargaon for the public purpose, namely construction of Yashwant Nagar-Dhamla road. The Collector, Land Acquisition, on hearing objections and compliance of all codal formalities announced the award. 6. It is seen that with respect to the land of the appellants in RFA No.294 of 2007 the compensation payable to them was assessed at the rate of Rs.29,984.69 per bigha qua the land, Kuhali Salana, Rs.15,795.48 Ober Khadi, Rs.10,173.30 Ober Gair Khadi, Rs.1,606.32 Banjar Kadim, Rs.5,354.40 for Banjar Jadid, Rs.1,338.60 Ghassni and Rs.267.72 (500.00) qua Gair Mumkin and Nakabil. Learned Additional District Judge, however, awarded the same at the rate of Rs.29,984/- per bigha irrespective of the nature and category of the acquired land. 7. Learned Additional District Judge, however, awarded the same at the rate of Rs.29,984/- per bigha irrespective of the nature and category of the acquired land. 7. In RFAs No.150 and 299 of 2007, the compensation as assessed and awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was at the rate of Rs.96,848.00 per bigha qua the acquired land Kuhali Salana, Rs.71,090.70 Ober Khadi, Rs.59,454.40 Ober Garir Khadi, Rs.19,575.40 Banjar Jadeed, Rs.9,272.70 Banjar Kadim, Rs.6,181.80 Ghassni and Rs.1,030.30 qua Nakabil and Garir Mumkin. Learned Additional District Judge in reference petitions, however, reassessed the same at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per bigha. 8. The legality and validity of the award under challenge in RFA No.294 of 2007 has been assailed on the grounds, inter alia, that learned Additional District Judge has not reassessed the compensation payable at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per bigha at par the one assessed with respect to the land having some potentiality and situated in the adjoining villages acquired for the same purpose. 9. In RFAs No.150 and 299 of 2007, the State has assailed the award on the grounds inter alia that learned Additional District Judge has enhanced the compensation without any cogent and reliable evidence produced by the respondents-claimants and also that the market value of the acquired land irrespective of the nature and category could not have been assessed at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per bigha. 10. Now if coming to the evidence recorded in reference petition No.9-N/4 of 2005, the same is consisting of documentary as well as oral. Ext.P.1 is the Khaka Dasti (spotmap), which depicts the position of land of adjoining villages. Exts.P.2 to P.5 are the sale instances whereby the land has been sold on different dates, i.e., after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act in village Neri Jagela by different persons. Exts.P.6 to P.8 are the average market price certificates pertaining to different period, i.e., again after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Ext.P.9 is the award passed by learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan with respect to the re-determination and enhancement of compensation qua the land acquired in village Neri Jagela, i.e., Rs.2,00,000/- per bigha irrespective of its nature and category. 11. The oral evidence is in the form of statements of the witnesses. Ext.P.9 is the award passed by learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan with respect to the re-determination and enhancement of compensation qua the land acquired in village Neri Jagela, i.e., Rs.2,00,000/- per bigha irrespective of its nature and category. 11. The oral evidence is in the form of statements of the witnesses. PW-1 Rama Nand is one of the petitioners and he has tendered in his statement the instances of sale, Exts.P2 to P.5, average market price certificates, Exts.P.6 to P.8 and copy of award, Ext.P.9. PW-2 Kamlesh Kumar is the Patwari of Patwar Circle, Habban and he has proved Khaka Dasti, Ext.P.1, whereas PW-3 Ved Parkash is another petitioner. 12. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has tendered in evidence the copy of sale deed Ext.R.1, whereby land measuring 10-12 bighas situated in village Ranaghat has been sold on 10th April, 1997 for a sum of Rs.25,000/-. 13. It is seen that the vendors and vendees in relation to the sale instances relied upon on behalf of the petitioners-claimants and the appellants-State have not been produced. Otherwise also, all the sale instances pertain to the period prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Learned Additional District Judge, therefore, has not committed any illegality or irregularity by refusing to place reliance thereon. As regards ocular evidence, the witnesses, particularly PW-3 Ved Parkash has not stated that village Neri Jagela to which the sale instances pertain is adjoining to village Maloh Mashog. Rather as per his version village Neri Jagela is distantly situated from village Maloh Mashog. The sale instances produced in evidence have also been discarded on this score. As per testimony of PW-3, villages Shargaon and Ranaghat are adjoining to village Maloh Mashog being situated in the middle of both villages. 14. Now if coming to the judgment dated 9th July, 2008 passed by this Court in RFA No.153 of 2007 and its connected matters, it is apparent that the land acquired in village Ranaghat, is acquired for the same purpose, namely construction of Yashwant Nagar-Dhamla road. In the bunch of appeals decided vide judgment supra the District Judge had re-determined the award at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per bigha irrespective of the category and nature of the acquired land. This Court while dismissing all the appeals, has upheld the award passed by learned District Judge. 15. In the bunch of appeals decided vide judgment supra the District Judge had re-determined the award at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per bigha irrespective of the category and nature of the acquired land. This Court while dismissing all the appeals, has upheld the award passed by learned District Judge. 15. As per evidence available on record, Khaka Dasti (Ext.P.1) reveals that Ranaghat is adjoining to village Maloh Mashog where the land belonging to the appellants-claimants is situated. Since it has come in the statement of PW-3 Ved Parkash that adjoining to their village Maloh Mashog, village Ranaghat is situated on one side and village Shargaon on the other, therefore, it can be inferred that there cannot be much difference qua the nature, quality and potentiality of the land in village Maloh Mashog and village Ranaghat. In such a situation when this Court has upheld the re-determination of compensation at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per bigha of acquired land situated in village Ranaghat vide judgment dated 9th July, 2008, passed in RFA No.153 of 2007 and its connected matters, in the considered opinion of this Court, appellants-claimants in RFA No.294 of 2007 are also entitled to the award of the compensation with respect to their land acquired for the construction of road in question at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per bigha. 16. If coming to RFAs No.150 and 299 of 2007, it is seen that the land of the respondents-claimants in these appeals is situated in village Shargaon. Learned Additional District Judge, on appreciation of the evidence produced by the parties on both sides, has re-determined the compensation payable to them at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per bigha irrespective of its nature and quality. 17. Learned Counsel has produced copy of judgment passed by a Co-ordinate bench of this Court in RFA No.302 of 2007, titled The State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Shri Sewa Ram and another, on 24th September, 2008 and has canvassed that the land acquired in that case was also situated in village Shargaon. Learned Counsel has further stated at the Bar that in Sewa Ram’s case learned District Judge has re-determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per bigha. The judgment supra reveals that the appeal preferred by the State against the award passed in that case was dismissed and the award upheld. Learned Counsel has further stated at the Bar that in Sewa Ram’s case learned District Judge has re-determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per bigha. The judgment supra reveals that the appeal preferred by the State against the award passed in that case was dismissed and the award upheld. Therefore, on this score also, the matter is covered by the judgment in Sewa Ram’s case in favour of the respondents-claimants. Consequently, the award under challenge in these appeals calls for no interference. 18. In view of the position discussed hereinabove, RFA No.294 of 2007 stands allowed. The impugned award is quashed and set aside. The appellants-claimants are held entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per bigha with respect to the acquired land irrespective of its nature and category together with all statutory benefits. The appeals, RFAs No.150 and 299 of 2007 preferred by the State, however, fail and the same are accordingly dismissed. 19. The claimants-respondents in RFA No.150 of 2007 are, however, at liberty to set in motion the machinery provided under the Act to get the issue of their entitlement to receive compensation settled by the competent forum and till such dispute is decided the awarded amount shall remain invested in fixed deposit. 20. All the three appeals stand disposed of accordingly.