Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 145 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Jindu alias Jeeb Ram

2014-03-04

SANJAY KAROL

body2014
JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, Judge These appeals, filed under the provisions of Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), arise out of common award dated 25.11.2008, passed by learned District Judge, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. Hence, all these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2.In terms of the impugned award, learned District Judge, in Reference Petitions, filed under the provisions of the Act, enhanced the compensation so awarded by the Collector to `5,000/- per biswa. Uniform rate has been applied qua the entire land, regardless of its category. District Judge has awarded compensation, i.e. interest commencing from the date on which possession, which was taken prior to the date of initiation of acquisition proceedings under the Act. 3.Facts are not in dispute. Total land acquired in all these appeals is less than six bighas (less than 6000 square yards). Land was acquired for the purpose of construction of road. Notification under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act was issued by the Land Acquisition Collector on 11.1.2000. The award, after completing codal formalities was announced by the Collector on 22.5.2003.The Collector awarded the following rates: 1. Market Value of Land Rs.71,371/- 2. 30% soletium Rs.21,407/- 3. 12% additional compensation u/s 23 (1-A) w.e.f. 5-4-2000 to 4-7-2001 (15 months) Rs.27,830/- 4. 9% interest u/s 34 from 5-4-2000 To 4-4-2001 (12 months)Rs. 6,423/- 5. 15% interest u/s 34 from 5-4-2001 to4-8-2003 (28 months)Rs.24,976/- Total Rs.1,51,997/- 4.Land owners filed petitions, under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, which stand allowed by the District Judge in terms of the impugned award. Land owners have not assailed the award. 5.State has assailed the award on two grounds (1) sale deeds produced by the State stand ignored; and (2) interest could not have been awarded prior to the date of initiation of acquisition proceedings. 6.Insofar as first ground is concerned, it be only observed that sale deeds relied upon (Ex. R-2/A, R-2/B & R-2/C) were not proved on record by the State, in accordance with law. They were simply exhibited by an Officer who was not even aware of the area to which they pertained to. He had no personal knowledge about the transaction. He had no knowledge about the genuineness of the sale consideration or the exact location of the land sold in terms thereof. They were simply exhibited by an Officer who was not even aware of the area to which they pertained to. He had no personal knowledge about the transaction. He had no knowledge about the genuineness of the sale consideration or the exact location of the land sold in terms thereof. State has not produced the vendors and the vendees of the sale deeds nor has the State produced any evidence to show that the subject matter of the sale consideration was at least similar to that of the land acquired by the State. Hence, no error can be found with the findings returned by the trial Court and the challenge, on this ground, untenable in law, needs to be rejected. Ordered accordingly. 7.Coming to the second ground, I find that the District Judge committed grave illegality in awarding interest from the date prior to the initiation of acquisition proceedings. 8.It is settled principle of law that interest, in terms of the Act, has to be awarded from the date of commencement of the acquisition proceedings. (Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and another versus Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, (2002) 1 SCC 142 ; and Special Tahsildar (LA), P.W.D. Schemes, Vijayawada versus M.A. Jabbar, (1995) 2 SCC 142 ). 9.Now in the instant case, notification under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act was issued on 11.1.2000. Thus, no interest could have been awarded to the land owners from the date of possession, which was taken in the year 1989. District Judge has awarded interest from 1.1.1989. This is illegal. This part of the award needs to be set aside. 10.The impugned award is thus modified to the extent that land owners shall be entitled to interest and compensation under the provisions of Sections 23(1-A), 23(2), 28 and 34 of the Act, with effect from 11.1.2000, instead of 1.1.1989. Thus, the appeals are disposed of having partly allowed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.