Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 681 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Satya Pal

2016-05-05

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2016
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Challenge herein is to the award dated 1.1.2011 passed by learned District Judge (Forest), Shimla in Land Reference Petition No. 28-S/4 of 2008/05. Learned Reference Court below on appreciation of the evidence produced by the parties on both sides has re-determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 40,000/- per biswa and enhanced the compensation accordingly. 2. The respondent-State aggrieved by the award has questioned the legality and validity thereof before this Court on the grounds, inter alia, that the Court below has re-determined the marked value of the land erroneously, in complete departure to the law laid down and also the evidence available on record. 3. The facts in a nut shell are that the appellant-State has acquired the land for construction of Sanjauli-Dhalli Bye pass road. Notification dated 18.11.2003 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ in short) was issued. Land belonging to respondent-petitioner Satya Pal and proforma respondents bearing Khasra No. 44/1, 65/1, 66/1 and 67 measuring 0-12-77 hectares situate in village Saruila-Baruila (Tilla) Tehsil Shimla (Rural), District Shimla was acquired. The notification under Section 6 of the Act was also issued on 17.6.2004. The Land Acquisition Collector after observance of all codal formalities under the Act has assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 8,00,000/- per bigha and awarded the compensation accordingly. 4. Respondent No. 1-petitioner aggrieved by the market value of the acquired land so determined and the compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector on lesser side has preferred Reference Under Section 18 of the Act and claimed the enhanced amount of compensation. Learned Reference Court after taking on record the response of appellant-State to the reference petition has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the petition is not maintainable for want of title as alleged? …OPR 2. Whether the compensation awarded to the petitioner is not just and adequate, if so, what is just and adequate compensation? ….OPP 3. Whether the petitioner has not been awarded interest as admissible? ….OPP 4. Relief. 5. On appreciation of the evidence produced by the parties on both sides and taking note of the law applicable to a case of this nature has arrived at a conclusion that the market value of the acquired land should have been Rs. 50,000/- per biswa. Whether the petitioner has not been awarded interest as admissible? ….OPP 4. Relief. 5. On appreciation of the evidence produced by the parties on both sides and taking note of the law applicable to a case of this nature has arrived at a conclusion that the market value of the acquired land should have been Rs. 50,000/- per biswa. However, deducting 20% on account of development charges the respondent-petitioner was held entitled to the compensation @ Rs. 40,000/- per biswa i.e. Rs 8,00,000/- per bigha. The compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was, therefore, enhanced accordingly and ordered to be paid together with all statutory benefits in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sunder Versus Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 3516 . The appellant-State, however, has assailed the legality and validity of the award under challenge in this appeal, whereas the respondent-petitioner has not opted for filing an appeal or cross-objections against the impugned award. 6. It is worthwhile to mention here that the land of other right holders has also been acquired for the same public purpose and vide the same notification. Therefore, the other right holders had also preferred references which were decided and the compensation awarded. The awards are under challenge in this Court in other similar appeals. One of the appeal RFA No. 293 of 2009 arising out of the same acquisition proceedings came to be decided along with its connected matter by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 23.3.2016. It is seen that this Court on reappraisal of the given facts and circumstances and also the evidence available on record has determined the market value of the acquired land as Rs. 9,05,107/- per bigha and held the respondent-claimant entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation together with statutory benefits accordingly. 7. True it is that the acquired land in that case was situated at village Chalaunthi whereas in the case in hand at village Saruila- Baruila (Tilla), however, the land in that case and in the present were acquired vide the same notification and even for the same public purpose namely construction of Sanjauli Dhalli Bye pass road. Therefore in view of Dr. Saif Ali Khan’s case supra the market value of the acquired land in this case should also be Rs. 9,05,107/- per bigha. Therefore in view of Dr. Saif Ali Khan’s case supra the market value of the acquired land in this case should also be Rs. 9,05,107/- per bigha. Otherwise also nothing could be brought to the notice of this Court by learned Additional Advocate General during the course of arguments as to why the point in issue in this appeal is not covered by the judgment of this Court in Dr. Saif Ali Khan’s case Supra. Therefore, applying the ratio of the judgment supra, there is no substance in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. 8. Now, if coming to the arguments addressed on behalf of the respondent-petitioner that he is also entitled to the compensation at the enhanced rate i.e. Rs. 9,05,107/- per bigha, no doubt, he has not filed any appeal in this Court for further enhancement of the amount of compensation. However, applying the ratio of the judgment of this Court in LAC Solan & another Versus Bhoop Ram and its connected matters, 1997(2) Sim, L.C. 229, even if he has not preferred the appeal, he is entitled to the award of compensation at the enhanced rates. I am drawing support in this regard from the following texts of this judgment:- “Though other claimants have not filed any appeal against the award, yet in exercise of our powers under Order 41, Rule 33 of the Civil Procedure Code, we order that they will also be awarded compensation for their acquired land at this rate. In the result, the appeals filed by the Land Acquisition Collector and the State of Himachal Pradesh are dismissed and impugned award is modified accordingly. We may give reasons for invoking extraordinary powers under Order 41, Rule 33 of the Civil Procedure Code to award uniform rate of Rs.40 per square metre or Rs.30,000/- per Bigha to all the respondents-claimants in these appeals. We may give reasons for invoking extraordinary powers under Order 41, Rule 33 of the Civil Procedure Code to award uniform rate of Rs.40 per square metre or Rs.30,000/- per Bigha to all the respondents-claimants in these appeals. Though we have dismissed the appeals of the Land Acquisition Collector and the State of Himachal Pradesh, yet we have allowed the appeal of one of the respondents-claimants, namely, Bhoop Ram in RFA No. 9 of 1984 to the limited extent that he will be entitled to compensation for his acquired land at uniform rate of Rs 40 per square metre or Rs 30,000/- per Bigha, as a result of which the impugned award is modified only in respect of the acquired land of respondent-claimant Bhoop Ram but in respect of other respondents-claimants by the same award different rates of market price are awarded according to classification of their acquired land, which creates an anomalous position. Therefore, in order to give just and fair compensation to all the respondents-claimants whose lands have been acquired for the same purpose and by the same notification under Section 4 of the Act, it is in the interest of justice and fair play to award compensation at the same rate which has been awarded to one of them, namely, Bhoop Ram, without their filing appeal or cross-objections. From the above pronouncements of the Supreme Court it is clear that Order 41, Rule 33 confers wide and unlimited jurisdiction on Courts to pass a decree in favour of a party who has not preferred any appeal, there are however certain well defined principles in accordance with which that jurisdiction should be exercised. Normally a party who is aggrieved by a decree should file appeal or cross-objections against it within a period of limitation, but there are well recognized exceptions to this rule. Some of them are : (i) Where as a result of interference in the appeal it becomes necessary to readjust the rights of other parties; (ii) where the question is one to settle mutual rights and obligations between the same parties and (iii) when relief rayed for is single and indivisible but is claimed against the number of defendants.” 9. Therefore, in the light of the legal principles, as discussed hereinabove, the respondent-petitioner is entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation, however, in case the judgment in Bhoop Ram’s case supra has attained finality. 10. Therefore, in the light of the legal principles, as discussed hereinabove, the respondent-petitioner is entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation, however, in case the judgment in Bhoop Ram’s case supra has attained finality. 10. The appeal stands accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.