Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 399 (HP)

State of HP v. Roshan Lal

2015-04-23

P.S.RANA

body2015
JUDGMENT : P.S.Rana, J. Present appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 against the award passed by Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? yes. learned District Judge Sirmour at Nahan on dated 31.10.2006 in land reference case No.20-LAC/4 of 2005 titled State of HP Vs. Roshan Lal and others. It is pleaded that appellants for the construction of Dhamkri-Ki-Johri Bagthan road proposed to acquire land situated at two villages Thakron and Takahan measuring 5.6 bighas in Tehsil Pachhad District Sirmour HP and notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was published in Rajpatra on dated 3.1.2004. It is further pleaded that award No.09/2004 was announced by Land Acquisition Collector on dated 30.6.2004 after assessing the market rate of acquired land at the rate of Rs.3500/- (Three thousand five hundred) per bigha for all categories of land. It is further pleaded that land owners demanded Rs. 3,00,000/- (Three lac) per bigha as market value of the land and being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award land owners preferred reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 before learned District Judge Sirmour at Nahan. It is further pleaded that learned District Judge framed issues and after recording evidence and after hearing both parties re-determined the market value of the land vide award dated 31.10.2006 and enhanced the market rate of land by holding that land owners are entitled for market rate of acquired land to the tune of Rs. 1,80,000/- (One lac eighty thousand) irrespective of its kind and category. It is further pleaded that other benefits were also given to the land owners. It is further pleaded that award passed by learned District Judge Sirmour at Nahan dated 31.10.2006 is against facts and law. It is further pleaded that learned District Judge had mis-construed the evidence placed on record and entire award is based upon conjectures and surmises. It is further pleaded that award should have been awarded as per classification of land. It is further pleaded that learned District Judge had relied upon sale deed Ext PW1/A and copy of one year average Ext PW1/B. It is further pleaded that learned District Judge had enhanced the award abnormally. Prayer for acceptance of appeal sought. 2. It is further pleaded that award should have been awarded as per classification of land. It is further pleaded that learned District Judge had relied upon sale deed Ext PW1/A and copy of one year average Ext PW1/B. It is further pleaded that learned District Judge had enhanced the award abnormally. Prayer for acceptance of appeal sought. 2. I have heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents at length and also perused entire record carefully. 3. Point for determination in present appeal is whether land owners are not entitled for award at uniform rate irrespective of nature and quality of land and whether learned District Judge had committed mis-carriage of justice to the State of HP by way of not appreciating oral as well documentary evidence properly. 4. Parties produced following witnesses in support of their case. PW1 Sh.Roshan Lal. PW2 Sh.Shamsher Singh PW3 Sh. Dinesh Sharma PW4 Sh. Yashvir Singh RW1 Sh Kulbhushan Verma 5. Parties also produced following pieces of documentary evidence in support of their case. Sr. No. Description of document Exhibit 1. Sale Deed Ext PW1/A 2. Copy of one year average cost. Ext PW1/B. 3. Attested copy of sale deed No.109 Ext R1 4. Attested copy of sale deed No.247. Ext R2 5. Statement of Kulbhushan Verma Ext RW1/A 6.1 PW1 Roshan Lal has stated that work for the construction of road was started in the year 1960 and Public Works Department had acquired the land in the year 1968. He has stated that no compensation was given to the land owners qua acquired land. He has stated that thereafter some of land owners filed writ petition in Hon’ble High Court of HP for acquisition of land under Land Acquisition Act 1894. He has stated that thereafter Hon’ble High Court of HP had directed the State to acquire the land. He has stated that thereafter acquisition proceedings were initiated by the Land Acquisition Officer and thereafter land owners were called for payment on dated 23.6.2004. He has stated that land owners used to earn Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- in six months from crops of potato and tomato etc. He has stated that land owners also used to earn Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- from crops of ginger. He has stated that land owners used to earn Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- in six months from crops of potato and tomato etc. He has stated that land owners also used to earn Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- from crops of ginger. He has stated that the land is situated adjoining Nahan-Shimla road and head quarter Sarahan is also situated adjoining the acquired land. He has stated that there are government offices, schools, telephone exchange and office of Block Development Officer. He has stated that value of the land was Rs.5,00,000/- (Five lac) per bigha. He has stated that sale deed Ext PW1/A was executed by Sh Shamsher Singh of village Banar at the rate of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) per biswa. He has stated that village Chalkana is at a distance of 3 Kms. from the acquired land. He has stated that compensation at the rate of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five lac) be granted. He has stated that he also tendered in evidence sale deed Ext PW1/A placed on record. He has stated that boundary of village Shyampur and village Thakrow are adjoining to each other. 6.2 PW2 Shamsher Singh has stated that he has alienated his land vide sale deed Ext PW1/A to Sh Rajinder Singh son of Sh Bhagwan Singh. He has stated that copy of sale deed Ext PW1/A is correct as per original record. He has stated that nature of his land and nature of acquired land are similar. He has stated that boundary of village Thakrow is also situated nearby the acquired land. 6.3. PW3 Dinesh Sharma has stated that he has tendered in evidence document Ext PW1/B placed on record. He has stated that boundary of village Thakrow and boundary of village Banar are adjoining to each other. 6.4 PW4 Sh Yashbir Singh Patwari has stated that he has brought summoned record. He has stated that average sale w.e.f. 25.5.2003 to 24.5.2004 is Ext PW1/B which is correct as per original record. 6.5 Statement of RW1 Kulbhushan Verma Additional Assistant Engineer HP PWD recorded in the form of affidavit Ext RW1/A. There is recital in the affidavit that Kulbhushan Verma was working as AAE in HP PWD Bagthan since 2000 and he is well conversant with road which leads from Dhamkari Ki Johri Bagthan and passes through Baghar Shekra Takahan Kamah Bhanjan Bannar, Chalog, Shampur Chandrog and Thakrow villages. There is recital in affidavit that LAC Award No.9 of 2004 was passed on dated 22.4.2004. There is recital in affidavit that land owners filed land reference petition. There is recital in affidavit that land in dispute is situated in villages Thakrow and Takahan and the road Dhamkeri Ki Johri Bagthan road passes through these villages. There is recital in affidavit that land in question is barren and there is no project, hospital School, Gram Panchayat Head Quarter, community health Centre, Dispensary, Post office and Bank etc. There is recital in affidavit that there is no business activities. There is recital in affidavit that at the time of construction of road there were some fruit bearing trees in the land in question and most of the land was barren and grassy land. There is recital in affidavit that land was used for growing wheat and maize. There is recital in affidavit that there was no irrigation scheme and the entire land is un-irrigated. There is recital in affidavit that some of the trees were felled during construction of road and land owners were duly compensated by supplementary award No.29 of 2005 dated 1.1.2005. There is recital in affidavit that at the time of construction of road the land owners were not growing ginger, tomato and garlic etc. in the land in question. There is recital in affidavit that land owners have been compensated adequately by way of award passed by Land Acquisition Collector and they are not entitled for any enhancement of compensation. 7. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General that learned District Judge had enhanced the award and granted uniform rate irrespective of nature and quality of land and on this ground appeal filed by State be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that land was acquired by the State Government for the construction of Damaka-Ki-Johadi-Bagthan road. It is held that classification completely loses its significance when acquired land is to be used as single unit for the construction of road. See 2003 (3) Shim L.C 64 titled HP Housing Board Vs. Ram Lal and others. Also see 2004 (4) SCC 79 titled R.L.Jain Vs. DDA and others. Also see 2003 (4) SCC 481 titled Ravinder Narain and anothers Vs. Union of India. Also see 2005 (12) SCC 564 titled Union of India Vs. See 2003 (3) Shim L.C 64 titled HP Housing Board Vs. Ram Lal and others. Also see 2004 (4) SCC 79 titled R.L.Jain Vs. DDA and others. Also see 2003 (4) SCC 481 titled Ravinder Narain and anothers Vs. Union of India. Also see 2005 (12) SCC 564 titled Union of India Vs. Harinder Pal Singh and others. Also see AIR 1988 SC 1952 titled Chiman Lal Hargovinddass Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer. 8. Another submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State that learned District Judge has illegally relied upon sale deed Ext PW1/A and on this ground appeal filed by State be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused sale deed Ext PW1/A placed on record. Sale deed Ext PW1/A was executed between Shamsher Singh son of Sh Bahadur Singh on dated 30.6.2003 and purchaser Rajender Singh son of Sh Bhagwan Singh. It is proved on record that 0-3 bighas of land situated in village Banar Tehsil Pachhad District Sirmour was alienated in consideration amount of Rs.45,000/- (Forty five thousand). Sale deed Ext PW1/A is proved as per testimony of PW2 Shamsher Singh. Hence it is held that learned District Judge has relied upon the sale deed Ext PW1/A placed on record in accordance with law. Although the road was acquired in the year 1968 but no compensation was granted to the land owners and thereafter land owners have approached Hon’ble High Court of HP for necessary direction and thereafter High Court of HP directed State Government to acquire land in accordance with law owned by land owners. 9. Another submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State that learned District Judge has illegally relied upon the average of one year Ext PW1/B placed on record is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. Document Ext PW1/B is proved as per testimony of PW3 Dinesh Sharma Patwari. Document Ext PW1/B has been prepared by public official in discharge of his official duty and is relevant fact under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. State of HP did not adduce any evidence on record in order to rebut document Ext PW1/B placed on record. 10. Document Ext PW1/B has been prepared by public official in discharge of his official duty and is relevant fact under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. State of HP did not adduce any evidence on record in order to rebut document Ext PW1/B placed on record. 10. In view of above stated facts it is held that learned District Judge Sirmour at Nahan had passed the award in Land Reference No. 20-LAC/4 of 2005 decided on 31.10.2006 titled Roshan Lal and others Vs. State of HP and others strictly in accordance with law and strictly in accordance with proved facts and it is held that learned District Judge had properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. It is held that there is no infirmity in the award and the award passed by learned District Judge Sirmour at Nahan in Land Reference No.20- LAC/4 of 2005 decided on 31.10.2006 titled Roshan Lal and others Vs. State of HP and others is affirmed. Appeal filed by the State is dismissed. No order as to costs. Learned Registrar Judicial will prepare decree of High Court as mentioned under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 forthwith. Pending applications if any are also disposed of.