Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 104 (HP)

Land Acquisition Collector HP PWD v. Boru

2016-02-24

P.S.RANA

body2016
ORDER : P.S.Rana, Judge. Present appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the award dated 1.7.2004 passed by learned District Judge Solan in land reference case No. 36-S/4 of 2003. Brief facts of the case: 2. Land Acquisition Collector HP PWD Solan and Sirmour HP issued notification for acquisition of land for construction of Bakhalag Bapdoon Tal Behli road in village Bapdon Tehsil Arki District Solan HP. Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act was issued on 6.6.1994 and thereafter award No.9/97 was passed by Land Acquisition Collector HP PWD Solan and Sirmour Districts at Solan. On dated 5.11.1997 learned Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation @ 39000/- (Thirty nine thousand) per bigha qua cultivated land and awarded compensation @ 6000/- (Six thousand) per bigha for non-cultivated land. 3. Feeling aggrieved against award No.9 of 1997 dated 5.11.1997 passed by learned Land Acquisition Collector 23 reference petitions filed before learned District Judge Solan and learned District Judge Solan disposed of all 23 reference petitions vide same award passed on 1.7.2004 and enhanced compensation amount @ 31000/- (Thirty one thousand) per bigha for cultivated land and Rs.64000/- (Sixty four thousand) per bigha for un-cultivated land. Learned District Judge further directed that petitioner would be entitled for additional compensation @ 12% per annum from the date of publication of notification i.e. 18.6.1994 to the date of award of the Land Acquisition Collector. Learned District Judge further directed that petitioner would also entitle for solatium @ 30%. Learned District Judge further directed that petitioner would be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and thereafter 15% per annum for the remaining period on the amount of excess compensation from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act to the date of deposit of the award amount in Court. 4. Feeling aggrieved against the award passed by learned District Judge present RFA No. 373 of 2004 titled LAC and another Vs. Smt. Boru and another filed. 5. Court heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of appellants and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents and also perused entire record carefully. 6. Following points arise for determination in present appeal. (1) Whether present RFA is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal?. (2) Relief. Finding on point No.1 with reasons: 7. Court heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of appellants and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents and also perused entire record carefully. 6. Following points arise for determination in present appeal. (1) Whether present RFA is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal?. (2) Relief. Finding on point No.1 with reasons: 7. It is proved on record as per statement showing compensation for each co-owner placed on record that Sh. Ram Sawroop son of late Rama and Smt. Boru daughter of late Rama were owners of 2/15 shares in khasra No. 78/4 measuring 3-3 bighas and nature of acquired land in khasra No. 78/4 is grassy land. Sh Ram Swaroop and Smt. Boru are real brother and sister. It is proved on record that only Rs.18900/-(Eighteen thousand nine hundred) total compensation amount was awarded to all co-owners in khasra No. 78/4. It is proved on record that RFA No. 364 of 2004 titled LAC and another Vs. Ram Swaroop and another was filed in which Smt. Boru was co-respondent No.2. Hon’ble High Court of HP on dated 16.5.2005 dismissed RFA No. 364 of 2004 in which Smt. Boru was co party observing that amount involved is only a petty amount. There is no evidence on record that order of Hon’ble High Court of HP is set aside by competent court of law. 8. In view of the fact that RFA No. 364 of 2004 titled LAC and another Vs. Ram Swaroop and another was dismissed by Hon’ble High Court of HP on 16.5.2005 in which Smt. Boru daughter of Rama was co-respondent No.2 Court is of the opinion that on the concept of equality before law under Article 14 of Constitution of India it is expedient in the ends of justice to dismiss present RFA No. 373 of 2004. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2(Relief). 9. In view of finding on point No.1 RFA No. 373 of 2004 titled LAC and another Vs. Smt. Boru and another is dismissed. It is held that similar matter against Smt. Boru cannot be agitated twice before Hon’ble High Court of HP in RFA No. 364 of 2004 and in RFA No. 373 of 2004. No order as to costs. RFA No. 373 of 2004 is disposed of. Pending applications if any also disposed of.