Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2661 (HP)

NTPC Ltd. v. Sukh Ram

2016-12-15

SANJAY KAROL

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. In terms of the impugned award dated 18.02.2014, passed by Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., (Camp at Biaspur), in Reference Petition No.141-4 of 2008, titled as Sukh Ram & others Versus LAC, 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.4,69,955/-, 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 then uniformly applying the said rate with respect to entire 29-0 bighas of land, acquired for public purpose i.e. construction of Kol Dam. 2. Certain facts are not in dispute: (i) 29-0 bighas of land came to be acquired in village Harnora (III File), Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. with the publication of notification in the official gazette on 14.08.2004, so issued under Section 4 of the Act; (ii) The acquisition proceedings concluded with the passing of the Collector’s Award No.58 of 2007 dated 25.04.2007, 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:- “The market value for Cultivated (Majrua) Rs. 4,69,955.00 (Rupees Four Lacs Sixty Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty Five) only and for Uncultivated (Gair-Majrua) Rs.1,04,416.00 (Rupees One Lac Four Thousand Four Hundred and Sixteen) only as applied in Award No.5 of 2003 in village Harnora already approved by Distt. Collector, Bilaspur vide No.BLP-ADRA-4(9)/94-II- 24142 dated 20-6-2002 appear to be just and reasonable for the land under acquisition in this award. Therefore, the rates already approved as discussed above have been applied in this award. Collector, Bilaspur vide No.BLP-ADRA-4(9)/94-II- 24142 dated 20-6-2002 appear to be just and reasonable for the land under acquisition in this award. Therefore, the rates already approved as discussed above have been applied in this award. (Annexure-C).” (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 petitions under Section 18 of the Act, which came to be clubbed (with Reference Petition No.141-4 of 2008) and on the basis of common 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 appeals 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. In the instant case, Reference Court has re-determined the market value of the acquired land by awarding the amount @ Rs.4,69,955/- per bigha. It took into account the highest rate so awarded by the Collector Land Acquisition. 5. Record reveals that parties did place on record exemplar sale deeds in support of their respective claims. Whereas, as against claim of Rs.15,00,000/- per bigha, so set up by the claimants, beneficiary tried to justify the passing of the award by the Collector. Now significantly, the claimants placed on record four sale deeds (Ex.P1 to Ex.P4) and beneficiary also placed on record four sale deeds (x.R1 to Ex.R4). But however, none of the witnesses i.e. Nathu Ram (PW.1), Kulbir Singh (PW.2), who stepped into the witness box could depose with regard to the similarity of the acquired land with that of the exemplar sale deeds. Also three sale deeds pertaining to land sold in village Chamyon and the sale transaction pertaining to village Harnora was only with respect to 0-12-0 bighas of land. 6. Insofar as beneficiary is concerned, sale deeds only came to be tendered in evidence which though could have been considered by the Reference Court in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Cement Corpn. 6. Insofar as beneficiary is concerned, sale deeds only came to be tendered in evidence which though could have been considered by the Reference Court in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Cement Corpn. of India Ltd. Versus Purya and others, (2004) 8 SCC 270 . But however, in the absence of any evidence with regard to similarity of the acquired land with that of these exemplar sale deeds, even such sale deeds cannot be taken to be true reflective value of the acquired land. Also two of such sale transactions pertain to different villages and remaining two sale transactions pertain to very small chunk of land admeasuring 0-1-0 bigha. Hence, Reference Court did not take exemplar sale transactions in re-determining the market value of the acquired land. 7. Insofar as other issue of enhancement of the amount is concerned, one finds that Reference Court rightly applied principle of law laid down in Haridwar Development Authority Versus Raghubir Singh and others, (2010) 11 SCC 581 , relevant portion of which reads 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. (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. 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 the category (D) of the aforesaid ratio. 9. No other point urged or proved. 10. 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 applications, if any. 11. Cross-objection, if any, shall also stand disposed of. 12. Quite evidently, in terms of award No.58 of 2007, so passed by the Collector several land reference petitions came to be clubbed and disposed of by the common impugned award dated 18.02.2014, passed by Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (Camp at Bilaspur), in Reference Petition No.141-4 of 2008, titled as Sukh Ram and others Versus LAC, Bilaspur and another. Common evidence was led by the parties in land Reference Petition No.28 141-4 of 2008, subject matter of the present appeal. Learned counsel for the parties contend that decision rendered in the present appeal would automatically apply to other connected matters which are pending before this Court. Common evidence was led by the parties in land Reference Petition No.28 141-4 of 2008, subject matter of the present appeal. Learned counsel for the parties contend that decision rendered in the present appeal would automatically apply to other connected matters which are pending before this Court. Registrar (Judicial) to take appropriate instructions from Hon’ble the Chief Justice for listing of such connected appeals before the appropriate Court, particulars whereof shall also be supplied by learned counsel for the parties.