Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1715 (HP)

Collector Land Acquisition v. Karam Singh

2015-11-21

RAJIV SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT : RAJIV SHARMA, J. 1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these appeals, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. However, in order to maintain clarity, facts of RFA No. 382 of 2008 have been taken into consideration. 2. These appeals are instituted against the award dated 30.4.2008, rendered by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi in reference petition Nos. 146/2002, 11/05, 144/2002, 36/2005, 143/2002, 35/2005, 147 of 2002, 34/2005, 141/2002, 33/05, 149/2002, 32/05, 142.2002, 31/2005, 145/2002, 13/05, 148/2002, 29/2005, 150/2002, 28/05, 151/2002, 20/2005, 152/2002, 19/2005, 153/2002, 22/2005, 154/200217/2005, 155/2002,18/2005, 156/2002, 12/2005, 157/2002, 15/2002, 158/2002, 16/2005, 159/2002, 21/2005, 160/2002, 23/2005, 161/2002, 26/2005, 162/2002, 27/2005, 163/2002, 14/2005, 164/2002, 24/2005, 165/2002, 25/2005 and 166/2002, 30/2005. 3. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of these appeals are that notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published H.P. Rajpatra on 11.4.1992. The same was also published in the vernacular newspapers Jansatta on 28.4.1992 and Dainik Tribune on 30.4.1992. Wide publicity was given in the locality on 5.6.1992. The notifications under Sections 6 and 7 were published in H.P. Rajpatra on 18.3.1993. Notifications under Sections 6 and 7 were also published in the vernacular newspapers Jansatta (Hindi) and Milap on 21.3.1993. Wide publicity was also given in the locality on 24.6.1993. The land of the land holders was situated in Mohal Kehar Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi. The Land Acquisition Collector made the award. Respondents-land holders filed references against the award made by the Land Acquisition Collector before the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi. According to the Land holders, market value of the land was more than Rs. 1 lac per bigha. The petitions were contested by the appellants. According to the appellants, adequate compensation was awarded to the land holders by the Land Acquisition Collector. Rejoinder was filed by one of the land holders. Issues were framed by the Fast Track Court on 6.10.2003. Learned Fast Track Court made an award on 30.4.2008 and awarded compensation @ Rs.60,000/- per bigha with all the statutory benefits. Hence, the present appeals. 4. Mr. Parmod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is exorbitant. He has also contended that the sale deeds Ext. RA and RB have wrongly been overlooked by the Reference Court. 5. Mr. Hence, the present appeals. 4. Mr. Parmod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is exorbitant. He has also contended that the sale deeds Ext. RA and RB have wrongly been overlooked by the Reference Court. 5. Mr. G.R. Palsra, has supported the award dated 30.4.2008. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 7. Pawan Kumar Sharma has appeared as PW-1. He has relied upon sale deed Ext. PA, dated 1.12.1990. According to him, they were paid compensation @ Rs.20,000/- per bigha. Though, they were entitled to Rs. 1 lac per bigha. The acquired land was fertile and irrigated. It was connected with state highway and national highway. The acquired land was in the vicinity of +2 school and Ayurvedic hospital. The land was suitable for growing fresh vegetables. The possession of the land was taken over in the year 1988. However, in his cross-examination he has admitted that National Highway does not adjoin their land, but their land abuts State Highway. 8. PW-2 Bali Ram has deposed that his father has sold 2 biswas of land @ Rs.3000/- per biswa on 1.12.1990. The price of per bigha land was Rs. One lakh bigha and the land was properly irrigated. 9. PW-3 Asha Devi has deposed that she has purchased 2 biswas of land for Rs.6000/- vide sale deed Ext. PA. She has purchased the land for growing vegetables. 10. RW-1 Ram Singh has produced the sale deeds Ext. RA and Ext. RB. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the sale deeds were in accordance with the market value. He has not denied that the market value is ordinarily less than the actual value reflected in the sale deed. 11. RW-2 Tulsi Ram has deposed that the land was acquired for the construction of Kuhal under the Balh valley irrigation project. He has admitted that vegetables were grown over the acquired land. He has not denied that the lands sold vide Ext. RA and RB were at a distance about 2 kms from the acquired land. He has admitted that vegetables were sown in some parts of kehar mohal. 12. The notification under Section 4 was published on 11.4.1992. It was duly published in vernacular newspapers Jansatta and Dainik Tribune on 28.4.1992 and 30.4.1992 respectively. RA and RB were at a distance about 2 kms from the acquired land. He has admitted that vegetables were sown in some parts of kehar mohal. 12. The notification under Section 4 was published on 11.4.1992. It was duly published in vernacular newspapers Jansatta and Dainik Tribune on 28.4.1992 and 30.4.1992 respectively. PW-3 Smt. Asha Devi has purchased 2 biswas of land for Rs.6000/- vide sale deed Ext. PA. This land is situate in the same mohal where the land has been acquired. So far the sale deeds Ext. RA and RB are concerned, the land of these sale deeds was situate at a distance of 2 Kms from the acquired land in a different mohal. The land acquired was irrigated. It was situated near +2 school. Ayurvedic hospital was also nearby the acquired land. It abuts the state highway. PW-3 Asha Devi has purchased the land for growing vegetables. Learned Presiding Officer Fast Track Court, Mandi has rightly awarded Rs.60,000/- per bighas with statutory benefits. The compensation awarded cannot be held to be exorbitant. 13. Accordingly, in view of the discussion and analysis made hereinabove, all the appeals are dismissed. Pending application (s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.