Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1663 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Hukmi Ram

2014-11-18

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. All these appeals/cross objections are being disposed of by a common judgment as these pertain to acquisition of land acquired for construction of Kayartu-Thaila road by common notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The lands of the petitioners/respondents/cross-objectors were subjected to acquisition for construction of Kayartu- Thaila road. The learned District Judge while assessing compensation qua the lands of the land owners as had come to be subjected to acquisition has assessed compensation for various categories of land at the rate hereinafter mentioned:- Sr. No. Kind of land Rate per bigha 1. Ghasni Land Rs. 66000/- 2. Banjar Kadeem Rs. 1,32,000/- 3. Banjar Jadid Rs. 2,64,000/- 4. Bhakal Deom Rs. 9,46,000/- 5. Bhakal Awal Rs. 11,00,000/- 3. The learned Additional Advocate General contends with force before this Court that the learned District Judge while relying upon Ex.PW4/B which manifests the market value of the land existing therein as on January, 2000, had, qua the lands subjected to acquisition on 29.11.2003, untenably given the purported escalation in the market value since the reflection of the market value of the land in Ex. PW4/B prepared in January, 2000 till the land having come to be ultimately subjected to acquisition subsequently on 29.11.2003, deemed it fit in his wisdom to provide a hike of 10% over the market value of various categories of land comprised in Ex.PW4/B. The aforesaid argument addressed before this Court by the learned Additional Advocate General peels off or acquires no force in the face of the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court enshrined in the judgment reported in Ahsanul Hoda v. State of Bihar, (2013)14 SCC 59 where in the relevant paragraph No.17, which is extracted hereinafter, it has been mandated that where the market value as is pronounced in the reliable parameter of probative worth, pertains to years preceding the acquisition of land in accordance with law, it is permissible for the Land Acquisition Collector or Courts of law to proceed to record or provide a hike of a reasonable per centum over the market value of land displayed in the reckonable parameter of probative worth preceding the subsequent acquisition of land in accordance with law. Paragraph 17 of the judgment referred to hereinabove reads as under:- "17. Paragraph 17 of the judgment referred to hereinabove reads as under:- "17. This Court in Saradar Jogendera Singh v. State of U.P., {(2008)17 SCC 133} (SCC p.135, para 13) noticed that the said case related to acquisition in the year 1979 and relying upon the award related on an acquisition of 1969 observed that the general increase between 1969- 1979 can be taken to be around 8-10% per annum, if this increase is calculated cumulatively, the total increase in 10 years would be around 100%." The said view is anchored upon the exposition that given the acquisition of land in accordance with law subsequent to the reflection of its market value in the reckonable admissible parameter pertaining to the preceding years there is an obvious escalation in the price of land which escalation ought not to remain irrevered especially for obviating any financial hardship to the landowners whose lands are subsequently subjected to acquisition in accordance with law. Consequently given the fact that Ex.PW4/B was prepared in January, 2000, whereas, the lands of the land owners were subjected to acquisition ultimately in November, 2003, hence, when the reckonable reliable parameter of probative worth comprised in Ex.PW4/B pertains to years preceding the acquisition of the lands of the land owners in accordance with law, consequently, the hike as adjudged by the learned District Judge to the extent of 10 per centum over the market value of the land displayed in Ex.PW4/B is in tandem with the mandate enshrined in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the relevant paragraph whereof has been extracted hereinabove. Furthermore, the hike for obviating financial hardship to the land owners, as also, is for not depriving them of the benefit of escalation in the price of the land since the preparation of Ex.PW4/B and the ultimate acquisition of their land subsequently. Consequently, the said argument is rejected. 4. Furthermore, the hike for obviating financial hardship to the land owners, as also, is for not depriving them of the benefit of escalation in the price of the land since the preparation of Ex.PW4/B and the ultimate acquisition of their land subsequently. Consequently, the said argument is rejected. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/cross-objectors/land owners has contended with force that the learned District Judge while pronouncing the award had untenably discarded the probative worth of Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C which unfold the factum of the lands comprised therein bearing a market value higher than the one as unfolded in Ex.PW4/B. However, the contention as addressed before this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/cross-objectors/land owners would stand vindication by this Court only in the event of it having been displayed by cogent evidence comprised in the best documentary evidence manifested by the Khaka dasti proved in accordance with law that the lands comprised in Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C located in village Nawar and Bhagoti, are situated in close proximity to the lands subjected to acquisition. However, though oral evidence exists on record revealing the factum of the lands of the respondents/petitioners/cross-objectors situated in Village Bhagoti and the lands situated in village Nawar being proximate in location which oral evidence is corroborated by khaka dasti, bearing Ex.RW2/A. Nonetheless, even then the sale exemplars comprised in Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C are not for reasons to be afforded hereinafter sacrosanct pieces of evidence to prod this Court to rely upon them. He also relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Haridwar Development Authority v. Raghubir Singh and others (2010)11 SCC 581 , the relevant paragraphs No. 9 and 10 are extracted hereinafter, which emphatically communicate the view that the sale instances of small tracts of land constitute evidence of probative worth, on strength whereto compensation can be determined for large tracts of land. However, while computing or assessing compensation for large expanses of land on the strength of sale considerations contracted for small tracts of land, deductions upto the permissible per centum are to be made. Relevant paragraphs No.9 and 10 of the judgment aforesaid read as under:- "9. The Collector has referred to several sale transactions but relied upon only one document, that is, sale deed dated 19.12.1990 relating to an extent of 11,550 sq. ft of land sold for Rs. Relevant paragraphs No.9 and 10 of the judgment aforesaid read as under:- "9. The Collector has referred to several sale transactions but relied upon only one document, that is, sale deed dated 19.12.1990 relating to an extent of 11,550 sq. ft of land sold for Rs. 4,04,250, which works out to a price of Rs. 35 per square foot. The Collector deducted 25% from the said price, as the relied upon sale transaction related to a small extent of 11,550 sq. ft and the acquired area was a larger extent of 8,45,174 sq. ft. By making such deduction, he arrived at the rate as Rs. 26.25 per square foot. The Reference Court and the High Court have also adopted the said sale transaction and valuation. 10. The claimants do not dispute the appropriateness of the said sale transaction taken as the basis for determination of compensation. Their grievance is that no deduction or cut should have been effected in the price disclosed by the sale deed for arriving at the market value in view of the following factors:- (i) that the acquired lands were near to the main bypass and had road access on two sides; (ii) that may residential houses had already come up in the surrounding areas, and the entire area was already fast developing; and (iii) that the acquired land had the potential to be used as an urban residential area. When the value of a large extent of agricultural land has to be determined with reference to the price fetched by sale of a small residential plot, it is with reference to the price fetched by sale of a small residential plot, it is necessary to make an appropriate deduction towards the development cost, to arrive at the value of the large tract of land. The deduction towards development cost may vary from 20% to 75% depending upon various factors {see Lal Chand v. Union of India, (2009) SCC 769, SCC p.790, para 22}. Even if the acquired lands have situational advantages, the minimum deduction from the market value of a small residential plot, to arrive at the market value of a larger agricultural land, in the usual course, will be in the rage of 20% to 25%. In this case, the Collector as himself adopted a 25% deduction which has been affirmed by the Reference Court and the High Court. In this case, the Collector as himself adopted a 25% deduction which has been affirmed by the Reference Court and the High Court. We therefore do not propose to alter it." On the strength of the aforesaid pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the learned counsel for the landowners/cross-objectors urges that the sale instance comprised in Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C constituted a valuable guide for the learned District Judge, as also, it constituted an admissible and relevant parameter while it enjoying probative vigour for facilitating an assessment of compensation qua the land subjected to acquisition. His having omitted to rely upon them, as such, has been contended to have committed a legal misdemeanor. 5. The contentions aforesaid advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/landowners in dispelling the purported tenuous reason afforded by the learned District Judge for overwhelming the effect of Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B are extremely shaky and are, for the reasons hereinafter, construed to be not having either sinew or strength. The reasons for so concluding is that in the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the landowners/cross-objectors the lands as subjected to acquisition were for the construction of colonies for housing people. Obviously, the authority/entity for whom the lands were acquired, had an inherent profiteering motive, inasmuch as the entity would after developing the lands acquired proceed to sell them at a profit to the public, therefore, the loss, if any, as it may be beset with in paying a hefty amount of compensation to the land owners would hence be off set by its selling lands on a phenomenal or escalated price to the public. Consequently, when the objective of acquisition in the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the cross-objectors/landowners was commercial, as a corollary, then the lands of the land owners as subjected to acquisition in the cases aforesaid perceivably commanded an inherent immense escalated potentiality which escalated potentiality as compatibly pronounced in the sale considerations qua small tracts of land, was construed to be a vindicable, tenable as well as a reckonable parameter for determining the market value of large tracts of lands as were subjected to acquisition. However, while determining compensation payable for large expanses of lands on the strength of sale considerations of small tracts of land, deductions towards developmental costs were ordained to be made. However, while determining compensation payable for large expanses of lands on the strength of sale considerations of small tracts of land, deductions towards developmental costs were ordained to be made. However, in the instant case the marked distinction is that lands of the landowners were subjected to acquisition for a public purpose by a welfare estate, inasmuch as, the lands of the landowners have been acquired for the purpose of construction of a public road. The appellants-State subjected to acquisition the lands of the landowners for construction of a public road as a measure of providing public amenity to the public. Obviously, the appellants/State given the salutary purpose of acquisition of the lands of the landowners has no inherent profiteering motive in subjecting the lands of the land owners to acquisition nor it would rear any commercial advantage from the acquisition of land of the landowners/cross-objectors. As a corollary encumbering it with the financial liability to defray to the landowners an exorbitant amount of compensation would defeat the very purpose for which the acquisition was made rather it would put the public exchequer replenished by taxing the honest taxpayers to an unnecessary and avoidable heavy burden. Naturally then, on this score the sale consideration comprised in Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C cannot provide a reasonable, fair and just parameter for determining on their strength compensation for the entire stretch of the vast expanse of land acquired by the appellants/State for providing a public amenity. Consequently, this Court is of the considered view that the judgment as relied upon by the learned counsel for the cross-objectors/landowners is discardable. Naturally then the view as adopted by the learned District Judge in dispelling the effect of Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C which pertain to small tracts of land, inasmuch as its not providing a valuable and reckonable parameter for determining on their strength compensation for an immense tract or a vast expanse of land, is a tenable view and ought not to be interfered with. 6. Consequently, otherwise when it has been per se displayed in Ex.PW4/B as relied upon by the learned District Judge while assessing compensation on its strength for the lands subjected to acquisition, that it comprises a reasonable as well as a tenable parameter for assessing and determining compensation for the lands of the land owners, hence, reliance upon it was appropriate. Consequently, otherwise when it has been per se displayed in Ex.PW4/B as relied upon by the learned District Judge while assessing compensation on its strength for the lands subjected to acquisition, that it comprises a reasonable as well as a tenable parameter for assessing and determining compensation for the lands of the land owners, hence, reliance upon it was appropriate. Besides when the enunciation in Ex.PW4/B has not been by adduction of cogent evidence to the contrary, falsified, as a corollary then the communications in Ex.PW4/B hold force. Therefore, reliance by the learned District Judge upon Ex.PW4/B which disclosed the average value of the land in village Nawar proved to be in contiguity as well as in close proximity to the location of village Bhagoti where the lands of the respondents/cross-objectors/petitioners are situated is reiteratedly not mis-placed, Moreover, to the contrary when otherwise, too the lands subjected to acquisition having not been convincingly proven to be in close proximity to lands whose market value is displayed in Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C, the reliance by the learned District Judge rather on Ex.PW4/B while it unfolds a proven and genuine market value of the lands comprised in it and theirs adjoining as well as situated in close proximity to the lands subjected to acquisition cannot be in any manner construed to be suffering from any taint or blemish of mis-appreciation of the evidence on record. 7. The learned District Judge while assessing compensation for the lands subjected to acquisition has assessed or determined varying/different rates of compensation for different categories of lands. However, uncontrovertedly when the lands bearing varying categories/classifications were acquired for a common purpose, hence, when it is settled law that when lands are subjected to acquisition for a common public purpose as the lands are in the instant case, theirs bearing distinct categorizations or varying classifications wanes, especially when in sequel to the completion of the purpose for which the lands were acquired, inasmuch as on completion of construction of the public road, their classifications and categorizations loses significance, rather they acquire a common/uniform potentiality, concomitantly, hence, necessitating assessment of uniform/common rates of compensation for each category of land. Obviously, then uniform rates of compensation ought to be assessed for different categories of lands or lands bearing different classifications. Obviously, then uniform rates of compensation ought to be assessed for different categories of lands or lands bearing different classifications. Since, in contravention of the settled legal position envisaging assessment of uniform rates of compensation qua lands bearing different categories/classifications, especially when lands bearing different classification were acquired for a common public purpose, the learned District Judge rather having assessed varying or distinct rates of compensation for lands bearing distinct categories or classifications, hence, has committed an impropriety. The said impropriety needs to be undone. 8. Consequently, the appeals preferred by the State bearing RFA Nos. 45, 46, 47, 48 of 2009 are dismissed and the cross objections Nos. 369, 360 & 359 of 2009 and RFA No. 97 of 2009 preferred on behalf of the landowners are allowed and it is ordered that the rate of compensation for all categories of lands or the lands bearing different classifications shall be at the rate assessed qua Bhakal Awal i.e. Rs. 11,00,000/- per bigha. The landowners in addition to the enhanced compensation are also entitled to (a) solatium at the rate of 30% on the enhanced compensation assessed hereinabove (b) interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of notification i.e. 29.11.2003 for one year and (c) interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of expiry of the period of one year of the date of notification i.e. from 30.11.2004 till the date of payment of the amount in the Court. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Order Accordingly.