Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1287 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Bhagat Ram

2017-11-23

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J : All these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment, given theirs arising from a common Award rendered by the learned Addl. District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, in reference petitions respectively instituted before him, by the landowners, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as the Act), whereby, they assailed the awards rendered by the Land Acquisition Collector concerned. 2. The relevant para meters, for, making a valid determination of the market value(s), of, the lands brought to acquisition, are, discernable from the apposite sale deeds, satisfying the twin legal canons (i) of proximity in time angle inter se their execution vis-a-vis the issuance of the apposite notification, and; (ii) proximity in location angle inter se the land(s) borne in the relevant sale exemplar(s) vis-a-vis the lands brought to acquisition. 3. The learned Reference Court, had, in determining compensation amount vis-a-vis the land(s) brought to acquisition, placed reliance upon Ex.PW1/A. Consequently, it is to be determined, whether imputation of reliance thereon, was valid or not, validity of reliance thereon, is to be gauged, from the factum, of, the petitioners' satiating the twin legal para meters (i) of execution of Ex.PW3/A occurring in contemporaneity vis-avis the issuance of the apposite notification. For determining whether the aforesaid principle, of law, begets satiation, an allusion to the trite factum, of, the apposite notification being issued on 10.10.1995, whereas, Ex.PW3/A, standing executing prior thereto, though hence obviously renders Ex. PW3/A to be a pre-notification sale exemplar; (ii) yet with its execution occurring prior to the issuance of the apposite notification, whereas only in years subsequent thereto besides with passage of time increase(s) in the market value occurring, may thereupon, render it to be, hence, satisfying parameter, of, its execution holding a close contemporaneity vis-a-vis the apposite notification. (iii) It may hence satiate the parameter of its execution holding proximity in time angle vis-a-vis the apposite notification. Nonetheless, the other parameter, for, facilitating, imputation of firm reliance, upon, Ex.PW3/A is comprised in its also satisfying, the other para meter of proximity in location angle, arising from lands borne therein, evidently occurring in close proximity vis-a-vis the lands brought to acquisition. Nonetheless, the other parameter, for, facilitating, imputation of firm reliance, upon, Ex.PW3/A is comprised in its also satisfying, the other para meter of proximity in location angle, arising from lands borne therein, evidently occurring in close proximity vis-a-vis the lands brought to acquisition. However, with PW-3, who tendered into evidence Ex.PW3/A, underscoring, in his examination-in-chief, of, the lands borne therein, being located remotely from the national highway, whereas, the land(s) brought to acquisition being located in proximity thereto, (iv) hence fillips an inference, of, the market value of lands borne therein, may be, being reckonable for determining just and fair compensation vis-a-vis the land(s) brought to acquisition, given (a) land(s) borne therein, standing, located improximately from the national highway, for construction whereof the lands of the landowners were brought to acquisition, latter lands whereof, rather occur in proximity thereto; (b) the remoteness of location of lands borne in Ex.PW3/A, from the National Highway, in proximity whereof rather the acquired lands occur, would render the market value of land(s) embodied therein, to be holding a lesser market value vis-a-vis the lands brought to acquisition, (c) given the latter lands, being testified by PW-3 in his examination-in-chief, to be occurring in proximity vis-a-vis the national highway, whereat, reiteratedly obviously, they would rear a higher market value, than the market value reared by land(s) borne in Ex.PW3/A, given theirs being located remotely from the national highway. Consequently, Ex.PW3/A also satiates the further legal parameter, of, the lands borne therein being, for the aforesaid reasons, constituting an apt reckonable indice, for determining compensation with respect, to the land(s) brought to acquisition. 4. What adds acceleration to the aforesaid inference, is, grooved in the fact, of, despite the aforesaid underscorings, occurring in the testification of PW-3, comprised, in his examination-in-chief, yet theirs being not concerted to be belittled, of their efficacy, by the learned District Attorney, by his adducing cogent evidence, (i) thereupon, the afore occurring testification is enjoined to be imputed solemnity. What adds acceleration to the aforesaid inference, is, grooved in the fact, of, despite the aforesaid underscorings, occurring in the testification of PW-3, comprised, in his examination-in-chief, yet theirs being not concerted to be belittled, of their efficacy, by the learned District Attorney, by his adducing cogent evidence, (i) thereupon, the afore occurring testification is enjoined to be imputed solemnity. Moreover, with PW-3, in his cross-examination negativing the suggestion put to him by the learned DA, that given the imminence of acquisition of lands borne in Ex.PW3/A, the sale consideration(s) in respect thereto being rigged, (ii) for hence capatalizing an apt therewith inference, rather renders open an inference that (a) the land(s) brought to acquisition, fetching, a higher price, given its occurrence, in proximity to the national highway, than the land(s) borne in Ex.PW3/A, necessarily even when it has not been shown, that any sale exemplar appertaining to the mohal concerned occurred, in the relevant year, (i) thereupon, the mere factum of lands borne in Ex.PW3/A being located in a Mohal, distinct from the mohal whereat the lands brought to acquisition, are located, may not be significant, for not placing reliance thereon. Predominantly also, with the State of H.P. while relying upon Ex.RW2/A, sale exemplar whereof, appertains to the mohal, whereat, the lands brought to acquisition, stand located, hence constraining this Court, to place reliance thereon, yet their endeavour is frustrated, (iii) by the factum of RW-2, not, proving the factum of the land(s) borne therein, occurring in close proximity vis-a-vis the lands brought to acquisition, (iv) nor any firm documentary evidence is adduced by the State of H.P., that, the lands comprised therein stand located in the vicinity of the lands brought to acquisition, (v) hence reliance thereon being imperative, than reliance upon Ex.PW3/A. In aftermath disimputation of reliance by the learned Reference Court vis-a-vis Ex. RW2/A, is apt, whereas, its placing reliance upon Ex.PW3/A, for, determining just and fair compensation vis-a-vis the lands of the landowners brought to acquisition, is, both apt as well as tenable. 5. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned Reference Court stand based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned trial Court has not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. 5. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned Reference Court stand based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned trial Court has not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. 6 In view of above discussion, there is no merit in the present appeals and they are dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the impugned common award rendered by the learned Reference Court is affirmed and maintained. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.