Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1203 (HP)

Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board v. Nardu

2017-10-30

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. These appeals, arising out of a common award passed by learned District Judge in reference petitions No. 9 of 2002, 12 of 2002, 13 of 2002, 14 of 2002, 17 to 19 of 2002, 22 of 2002, 23 of 2002, 28 of 2002, 30 of 2002, 36 to 38 of 2002, 40 of 2002, 43 of 2002, 44 of 2002, 49 of 2002, 50 of 2002, 51 of 2002, 53 of 2002, 54 of 2002, 56 of 2002, 61 of 2002 under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), are being decided by this common judgment, as common question of facts and law is involved in these appeals and also reference petitions, out of which these appeals have arisen, were also clubbed in the Reference Court and evidence was led only in one Reference Petition No. 56 of 2002 titled Mohinder Pal v. Land Acquisition Collector and RFA No. 265 of 2010 titled HPSEB v. Mohinder Pal and others arising out of the said Reference Petition is also amongst these appeals, evidence wherein only is available for appreciation. 2. For construction of Larji Hydel Project, Government of Himachal Pradesh had issued notification dated 5.2.1988 under Section 4 of the Act which was published in local daily newspapers on 3.4.1988 and in Rajpatra on 30.4.1988 to acquire land in village Thalot, District Kullu. Land Acquisition Collector, after completion of procedure and codal formalities under the Act, had announced Award No. 57 of 1990 dated 6.10.1990 and had assessed market value of acquired land on the basis of classification of land as under:- Classification of land Rates per bigha Barani Awal Rs.18,106/- Barani Dom Rs.13,577/- Kharyatar Rs. 3,771/- Some of the land owners were also having structures of their houses/shops/local industries on the land under acquisition, for which separate compensation on the basis of assessment of Civil Engineer of HPPWD was awarded. 3. For loss of fruit bearing trees standing on the acquired land, separate compensation, calculated on the basis of Harbans Singh's formula, evolved in the year 1966, was also awarded. 4. Being dissatisfied with compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, land owners had preferred land reference petitions under Section 18 of the Act, which were filed in the Court in the year 1997. 4. Being dissatisfied with compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, land owners had preferred land reference petitions under Section 18 of the Act, which were filed in the Court in the year 1997. But considering these reference petitions improper, the same were returned to the Land Acquisition Collector to re-file those petitions in proper manner as directed vide order 17.11.2000 passed by learned District Judge. Petitions were re-filed on 27.2.2002. Record of earlier petitions was also requisitioned by learned District Judge for consideration at the time of final adjudication of these reference petitions. 5. After considering the evidence led by parties, learned District Judge has assessed market value of land under acquisition at the rate of Rs. 1,60,000/- per bigha irrespective of classification and nature of land and enhancement at the rate of 10%, to the value of structures assessed by the department, was also awarded and further four times increase to the compensation awarded for fruit bearing trees was also allowed. In addition, compensation on account of loss of goodwill and earnings was also granted by learned District Judge to some of the land owners whose business had affected adversely on account of acquisition and displacement. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the evidence on record. 7. It is contended on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant that there was no evidence on record so as to award compensation at the rate of Rs. 160,000/- per bigha and learned District Judge has committed a mistake in relying upon the award No. 53 of 1993 dated 20.1.2001 (Ext.PW4/A) for assessing the market value of land under acquisition in the present case. It is also argued that enhancement of 10% to the value of structure assessed by the department and four times increase to the value of fruit trees assessed on the basis of Harbans Singh's formula is also illegal for want of sufficient material on record. 8. On contrary, learned counsel for the respondents have supported the impugned award on the grounds stated therein and contended that compensation enhanced by learned District Judge is on the lower side and as per settled law of land and also evidence on record, land owners were entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs. 8. On contrary, learned counsel for the respondents have supported the impugned award on the grounds stated therein and contended that compensation enhanced by learned District Judge is on the lower side and as per settled law of land and also evidence on record, land owners were entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs. 2 lac per bigha and much higher amount of compensation for structures on the basis of un-rebutted evaluation reports proved on record by land owners. However, it is fairly submitted by them that for want of filing of cross appeals/objections, the land owners are not agitating for further enhancement of compensation. 9. Besides leading oral evidence, land owners have proved on record sale deeds Ext.PW4/C, Ext.PW4/D (which is also again proved on record as Ext.PW11/B and Ext.P-2), Ext.PW11/A (again proved on record as Ext.P-3) and Ext.PW11/C (also proved on record as Ext.P-1). Land owners have also relied upon award Ext.PW4/A dated 20.1.2001 passed by learned District Judge with respect to land of adjoining village acquired for the same purpose during the same period. Reliance has also been placed on an order Ext.PW4/B passed in RFA No. 44 of 1988 pertaining to the land under acquisition in the same village for construction of National Highway-22 in the year 1982. 10. Land owners have also relied upon site plans Ext.PW2/A, Ext.PW3/C, Ext.PW3/E, Ext.PW3/G and Ext.PW3/J, evaluation reports/abstract of costs/estimates Ext.PW2/B to Ext.PW2/L, Ext.PW3/A, Ext.PW3/B, Ext.PW3/D, Ext.PW3/F, Ext.PW3/H and Ext.PW13/A for enhancement of amount of compensation for structures standing on the land under acquisition. 11. Respondents have proved on record sale deeds Ext.R-I, Ext.R-II, Ext.R-III pertaining to the instances of sale in the same village i.e. Thalot however in the year 1984. Sale deeds Ext.R-I, Ext.R-II and Ext.R-III relied upon are dated 15.2.1984, 24.2.1984 and 7.6.1984. Land in the present case was acquired in the year 1988. Therefore, these sale deeds though pertaining to the same village Thalot, but are not proximated to the time of acquisition of land in question and therefore, learned District Judge has rightly discarded these sale deeds at the time of determining the market value of land under acquisition. 12. Instance of acquisition involved in case RFA No. 44 of 1988 copy of order wherein along with judgment in RFA No. 72 of 1988 has been placed on record, is not proximated to the time of acquisition in present case. 12. Instance of acquisition involved in case RFA No. 44 of 1988 copy of order wherein along with judgment in RFA No. 72 of 1988 has been placed on record, is not proximated to the time of acquisition in present case. Sale deeds and award of contemporary period are available on record and therefore this document has no relevance for determination of market value of land under acquisition in the present case. 13. Sale deed Ext.PW4/D (Ext.PW11/B and Ext.P-2) pertaining to the same village i.e. Thalot was executed on 18.3.1987. In this transaction, land was sold at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per biswa i.e. Rs. 2 lac per bigha but the sale deed is dated 18.3.1987, which is more than one year old to the date of last publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act and therefore, learned District Judge had rightly ignored this sale deed. 14. Sale deed Ext.PW4/C was executed on 23.10.1987 i.e. about six months prior to the last publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. According to this transaction, market value of land, pertaining to the same village, comes to Rs. 1,60,000/- per bigha. Two other sale deeds Ext.PW11/A (Ext.P-3) dated 27.2.1988 and Ext.PW11/C (Ext.P-1) dated 30.1.1988, were executed within six months of the issuance as well as last publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. These sale deeds pertain to the same village and in these transactions, land was sold at the rate of Rs. 2 lac per bigha. Learned District Judge has also taken into consideration sale deed Ext.PW4/D wherein market value of land comes to Rs. 2 lac per bigha. However after making a deduction of 25% for the reason that sale deed in question was for a small chunk of land, he had calculated market value of land at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per bigha. 15. 2 lac per bigha. However after making a deduction of 25% for the reason that sale deed in question was for a small chunk of land, he had calculated market value of land at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per bigha. 15. No doubt, it is also settled that issue with respect to small chunk or large chunk of land under acquisition for one purpose, is not to be considered on the basis of total area being acquired, but it is also to be considered with reference to the area of the individual land owner under acquisition and in case there is evidence on record to prove that area under acquisition was having the proximity and the same potential so as to land involved in an exemplar transaction, the deduction on account of sale deeds being of a small chunk, is not permissible. However, in present case no such evidence has been produced by land owners. 16. Market value of the land on the basis of sale deeds Ext.PW11/A (Ext.P-3) dated 27.2.1988 and Ext.PW11/C (Ext.P-1) dated 30.1.1988 also comes out to Rs. 2 lac per bigha and for want of evidence with respect to the proximity and of same potential, if deduction of 25% is made then value of land comes to Rs. 1,50,000/-. 17. Land owners have also proved on record an award Ext.PW4/A passed in reference petition No. 53 of 1993 by learned District Judge pertaining to the acquisition for the same project in the same village but by issuing the separate notification dated 22.12.1987 under Section 4 of the Act it was published on 7.5.1988. In the present case, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 5.2.1988 and lastly published in Rajptra on 30.4.1988. There is close proximity in issuance of notification and publication thereof in both cases. Proximity of location, being land of the same village, is also there. Nothing has been placed on record by the appellant to prove that award Ext.PW4/A was ever disturbed by Higher Court. In the said award learned District Judge had determined market value of land at the rate of Rs. 1,60,000/- per bigha irrespective of classification of land. 18. On the basis of sale deeds Ext.PW11/A and Ext.PW11/C after deduction of 25%, market value of land comes out to Rs. 1,50,000/- per bigha. There is no straight-jacket formula for making deduction. In the said award learned District Judge had determined market value of land at the rate of Rs. 1,60,000/- per bigha irrespective of classification of land. 18. On the basis of sale deeds Ext.PW11/A and Ext.PW11/C after deduction of 25%, market value of land comes out to Rs. 1,50,000/- per bigha. There is no straight-jacket formula for making deduction. Depending upon facts and circumstances of the given case, it may vary and in case 20% deduction is made to the rate proved by exemplar sale deeds, market value of land under acquisition comes to Rs. 1,60,000/- per bigha. Even otherwise, the best evidence pertaining to land of adjoining village having similarity of location and potential acquired for the same purpose during the same period is available on record. Therefore, learned District Judge, in view of award Ext.PW4/A, has not committed any mistake in determining the market value of land at the rate of Rs. 1,60,000/- per bigha. 19. Land owners, having structures upon the land under acquisition, have relied upon evaluation reports/abstract of costs/estimates Ext.PW2/B to Ext.PW2/L, Ext.PW3/A, Ext.PW3/B, Ext.PW3/D, Ext.PW3/F, Ext.PW3/H and Ext.PW13/A for enhancement of compensation for their structures existing on the land under acquisition. It has come on record that these evaluation reports were prepared in the year 1997 on the basis of cost of construction prevailing in the year 1997 in towns. Whereas, structures under acquisition were situated in the village and were acquired in the year 1988. It has also come on record that these structures were not in good condition. Land Acquisition Collector had relied upon the evaluation report prepared by the Civil Engineer of HPPWD on the basis of cost of construction prevailing in the year 1987. Learned District Judge has rightly considered the evaluation report relied upon by Land Acquisition Collector and has committed no mistake in awarding the enhancement of 10% to the valuation carried out by the department as these structures were acquired in the year 1988. This enhancement, allowed by learned District Judge after taking into consideration the increase in price index of 1988 in comparison to 1987, is genuine. 20. It is also admitted fact that market value of the trees was assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector on the basis of Harbans Singh's formula which was evolved in the year 1966 and the land in present case was acquired in the year 1988. 20. It is also admitted fact that market value of the trees was assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector on the basis of Harbans Singh's formula which was evolved in the year 1966 and the land in present case was acquired in the year 1988. Learned District Judge has relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in Union of India and others v. Khajana Ram and others 1998(1) Shim.L.C. 479 wherein, relying upon the price index, five times increase to the valuation carried out by the department on the basis of Harbans Singh's formula, was allowed in a case of land acquisition in the year 1989. In the present case acquisition has taken place in the year 1988 and therefore, learned District Judge has not committed any mistake in allowing four times increase to the market value of the fruit bearing trees assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector on the basis of Harbans Singh's formula. 21. Learned District Judge has also awarded compensation, ranging from Rs. 600 to Rs. 50,000/-, on account of goodwill, loss of earnings and loss of rent to some of the land owners. On scrutiny of evidence on record, it is found that there is no perversity in calculation of amount of compensation under these heads. Learned counsel for the appellant has also failed to point out any ground for interference. 22. No other point urged or argued. 23. In view of above discussion, there is no illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the award passed by learned District Judge, who has appreciated the evidence on record completely and correctly and in consonance with the settled law of land. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Record be sent back.