Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2653 (HP)

NTPC Ltd. v. Balam Singh

2016-12-14

SANJAY KAROL

body2016
JUDGMENT : SANJAY KAROL, J. 1. In terms of the impugned award dated 08.11.2011, passed by Additional District Judge, Mandi, Camp at Karsog, H.P., in Reference Petition No.55 of 2008, titled as Balam Singh Versus LAC (Kol Dam), Bilaspur and another, so filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), Reference Court, has re-determined the market value of the entire acquired land by awarding Rs. 6,08,980/-the highest rate awarded by the Collector Land Acquisition with respect to the best quality of land. Significantly, Reference Court has not enhanced any amount other than uniformly applying the said rate with respect to entire 3-12-0 bighas of land, acquired for public purpose i.e. construction of Kol Dam. 2. Certain facts are not in dispute: (i) 3-12-0 bighas of land came to be acquired in village Kidiya, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, H.P., with the publication of notification in the official gazette on 12.12.2000 so issued under Section 4 of the Act; (ii) The acquisition proceedings concluded with the passing of the Collector's Award No. 55 of 2006, dated 16.07.2006, so issued under Section 11 of the Act, whereby he determined the market value at the following rates and the State taking over possession of the land:- Village Classification of land Market value per bigha Sarour Dhani Abal Rs.6,08,980.00 Thogi Dhani Dom Rs.5,03,071.00 Kidiya Barani Abal, Abadi, Khalwara etc. Rs.3,70,684/- Randol Barani Dom Rs.2,97,871.00 Thali Barani Som Rs.1,98,580.00 Bagicha Barani /Kulahu Rs.6,61,935.00 Banjar Kable Kasht/Banjar Jadid Rs.99,290.00 Khadyatar Gair Mumkin Rs.79,472.00. (iii) The purpose of acquisition being construction of Dam, commonly known as Kol Dam; (iv) Dissatisfied with the offer made by the Collector, claimants filed petition under Section 18 of the Act, and on the basis of evidence led by the parties, disposed of in terms of impugned award; (v) While the claimants accepted the award, only the beneficiary preferred the present appeal (s) under Section 54 of the Act; (vi) It is the common case of parties that the entire acquired land came to be submerged with the construction of Dam by the beneficiary. Also there is no evidence on record of either any requirement or any developmental activity carried out on the spot. 3. With these admitted/undisputed facts, material placed on record by the parties is being appreciated for just decision of the case. 4. Also there is no evidence on record of either any requirement or any developmental activity carried out on the spot. 3. With these admitted/undisputed facts, material placed on record by the parties is being appreciated for just decision of the case. 4. Record reveals that claimant Balam Ram examined himself as PW.1, claiming value of the acquired land to be Rs. 15,00,000/- per bigha. Now significantly, except for documentary evidence (Ex.P1), he did not place on record any exemplar sale deed. Though beneficiary did not lead any ocular evidence, but placed on record one exemplar sale deed (Ex.R1). 5. These documents, rightly stand rejected by the Reference Court for the reason that these sale transactions are subsequent to the initiation of acquisition proceedings and in any event there is nothing on record to establish its similarity of potential, use, kind and nature with that of the acquired land. 6. Noticeably with respect to other acquired land, in the same Tehsil, even this Court has awarded compensation, on uniform basis, irrespective of the classification, nature and category of land. In fact, in one such case reported in NTPC Ltd. Versus Kirpa and others, Latest HLJ 2016 (HP) 253, with respect to acquisition proceedings pertaining to the very same public purpose stands affirmed by the Apex Court. 7. Noticeably, Reference Court, while awarding compensation on uniform basis, by taking the highest rate, so determined by the Collector himself, referred to and relied upon several decisions rendered by the Apex Court and more pertinently so rendered in Haridwar Development Authority Versus Raghubir Singh and others, (2010) 11 SCC 581 , wherein it is held as under: “7. The question whether the acquired lands have to be valued uniformly at the same rate, or whether different areas in the acquired lands have to be valued at different rates, depends upon the extent of the land acquired, the location, proximity to an access road/Main Road/Highway or to a City/Town/Village, and other relevant circumstances. We may illustrate: (A) When a small and compact extent of land is acquired and the entire area is similarly situated, it will be appropriate to value the acquired land at a single uniform rate. We may illustrate: (A) When a small and compact extent of land is acquired and the entire area is similarly situated, it will be appropriate to value the acquired land at a single uniform rate. (B) If a large tract of land is acquired with some lands facing a main road or a national highway and other lands being in the interior, the normal procedure is to value the lands adjacent to the main road at a higher rate and the interior lands which do not have road access, at a lesser rate. (C) Where a very large tract of land on the outskirts of a town is acquired, one end of the acquired lands adjoining the town boundary, the other end being two to three kilometers away, obviously, the rate that is adopted for the land nearest to the town cannot be adopted for the land which is farther away from the town. In such a situation, what is known as a belting method is adopted and the belt or strip adjacent to the town boundary will be given the highest price, the remotest belt will be awarded the lowest rate, the belts/strips of lands falling in between, will be awarded gradually reducing rates from the highest to the lowest. (D) Where a very large tract of land with a radius of one to two kilometers is acquired, but the entire land acquired is far away from any town or city limits, without any special Main road access, then it is logical to award the entire land, one uniform rate. The fact that the distance between one points to another point in the acquired lands, may be as much as two to three kilometers may not make any difference.” 8. The Reference Court, rightly held the acquired land to fall within category (D). 9. Even the Collector, in his award observed that the value of the adjoining village i.e. Tatapani was more. It acknowledged the fact that deduction by 5% was to be effected with respect to village Kidiya only for the reason that it did not have facilities like road, hospital etc. 10. No other point urged or proved. 11. Hence in the given facts and circumstances, no interference is warranted. It cannot be said that the findings returned by the Reference Court are perverse, illegal or erroneous. 10. No other point urged or proved. 11. Hence in the given facts and circumstances, no interference is warranted. It cannot be said that the findings returned by the Reference Court are perverse, illegal or erroneous. As such, present appeal stands dismissed, so also pending application (s), if any. 12. Cross-objection, if any, shall also stand disposed of.