Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1336 (HP)

Puneet Goel v. State of H. P.

2017-12-05

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal is directed against the award pronounced by the learned Reference Court, upon, Land Reference Petition No. 1-S/4 of 2009, whereunder, the learned Reference Court, assessed market value of the land brought to acquisition, to fall in a sum of Rs.2,450/- per square meter also thereon it levied all the statutorily accruable benefits. 2. The respondent, under, a notification bearing No. PBW-(b)A(7)1-160/2006 of 14.05.2007, notification whereof was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), hence, brought to acquisition the apposite land, measuring 64 square meters, for a public purpose, namely, for widening and construction of Shimla-Kangra, National High Way-88. Uncontrovertedly, the acquired land, in the apposite column of the jamabandi concerned, carries, the nomenclature of “Banjar Kadeem”. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed in respect thereto compensation borne in a sum of Rs.1186.24 paise per square meter. In respect of Bakhal Awal land and in respect of Bakhal Doyam land, he proceeded, to, respectively assess market value(s) borne in sum of Rs.8,600.24 paise and in a sum of Rs.5,535.78 paise per square meter. The landowners/petitioners/ appellants herein, being, aggrieved therefrom hence reared a petition before the learned Reference Court, thereupon, the learned Reference Court, upon, considering the germane evidence adduced therebefore by the contesting parties made its valuation in a sum of Rs.2,450/- per square meter. 3. The enjoined legal parameters, for making valid determinations, of, market values, of acquired lands besides thereafter assessing a just and fair compensation in respect of their acquisition ARE (a) proximity in time angle inter se the issuance of the apposite notification vis-a-vis the execution(s) of the relevant sale exemplars AND (b) proximity in location angle inter se the lands brought to acquisition vis-a-vis the lands borne in the sale exemplars. 4. The impugned award recorded by the learned Reference Court, would, acquire a halo of validation, only when, upon, its incisive reading, disclosures emanate, of, the aforesaid legally enjoined parameters, being visibly borne in mind. 4. The impugned award recorded by the learned Reference Court, would, acquire a halo of validation, only when, upon, its incisive reading, disclosures emanate, of, the aforesaid legally enjoined parameters, being visibly borne in mind. The learned Reference Court, had, in computing the market value, of, the lands brought to acquisition, proceeded, to place implicit reliance, upon, Ex.PW1/A, exhibit whereof is a sale deed executed on 26.06.2004, (i) whereafter, it proceeded to make 10% accretion(s) for the year succeeding thereto, whereupon it computed its per square market value in a sum of Rs.2,023/- per square meter, (ii) whereafter it thereon added 10% appreciation for the second successive year(s), hence computed its per square meter market value in a sum of Rs.2,225/- and (iii) thereafter, it, for the year immediately preceding, the year of issuance of the apposite notification also added thereon 10% escalation, thereupon it reckoned the per square meter market value, of, the acquired land in a sum of Rs.2,450/-. The aforesaid manner of computation, of, the per square meter market value of the lands brought, to acquisition, is per se ridden with a gross infirmity, (iv) conspicuously, hence he blatantly infringed the legally approbated aforesaid twin parameters, for, hence his arriving at valid just and fair compensation, with, respect to the lands brought to acquisition. The reason for drawing the aforesaid inference, is marshalled from (v) the apposite notification being issued on 14.05.2007, whereas, Ex.PW1/A standing executed, three years, prior thereto, thereupon, the salient principle, of, it bearing proximity inter se the date of its execution vis-a-vis the date of issuance of the notification, remains visibly infringed. Even though, the subsequent parameter of proximity in location angle visibly ocurring inter se lands borne therein vis-a-vis the lands brought to acquisition, may stand satiated, also thereupon, satisfaction(s) of one of the twin enjoined parameters, for computing just and fair compensation, was, neither sufficient nor statutorily tenacious, nor on anvil thereof, the learned Reference Court, could, in the manner aforesaid, make, any valid determination, of, just and fair compensation vis-a-vis the lands brought to acquisition. 5. In making apt determination(s) qua the most befitting sale exemplar/documentary evidence, given, its, for all reasons ascribed hereinafter, hence, satiating the aforestated twin parameters, an allusion is imperative visa- vis the one borne in Ex.PW1/C. Ex. PW1/C was tendered into evidence by PW-1. 5. In making apt determination(s) qua the most befitting sale exemplar/documentary evidence, given, its, for all reasons ascribed hereinafter, hence, satiating the aforestated twin parameters, an allusion is imperative visa- vis the one borne in Ex.PW1/C. Ex. PW1/C was tendered into evidence by PW-1. During the course of his testification, he, articulates, of, the aforesaid exhibit comprising, an award pronounced by the Land Acquisition Collector concerned, whereunder, he determined compensation, for land acquired for construction of road from Shimla Chakkar to New Judicial Complex, whereunder, market values of acquired lands, classified, as Banjar Kadeem, is assessed in a sum of Rs.2,568.28 paise per square meter. He in his testification also rendered a communication of lands borne in Ex.PW1/C, holding proximity with the lands brought to acquisition hereat, besides has continued to testify (i) that in the vicinity of the lands brought, to acquisition, there existing a school and a bank. Consequently, in his testification, he voices, of, the lands brought to acquisition holding immense commercial value besides potentiality and in future, theirs holding abundant potential for rearing heavy pecuniary gains to him. During the course of his cross-examination, he was subjected to an ordeal of a rigorous crossexamination, for, belittling the efficacy, of, his articulations borne in his examination-in-chief, qua the inter se distance inter se the acquired land and the land acquired for construction of road for the judicial Court complex, in respect whereof an award comprised in Ex.PW1/C stood pronounced, being not more than a kilometer, yet the apposite suggestion in respect thereof put to him did not, sequel an apt befitting response from PW-1. Also the respondents, during, the course of adduction of their evidence, omitted to adduce any cogent evidence, wherein markings, with specificity occurred qua the exact distance inter se the lands brought to acquisition hereat vis-a-vis the lands acquired for construction of road, from, Chakkar to judicial court complex. Also the respondents, during, the course of adduction of their evidence, omitted to adduce any cogent evidence, wherein markings, with specificity occurred qua the exact distance inter se the lands brought to acquisition hereat vis-a-vis the lands acquired for construction of road, from, Chakkar to judicial court complex. Absence of adduction, of best befitting cogent documentary evidence by the respondents, wherein candid, markings upsurged qua the intra se distance inter se the lands brought to acquisition hereat vis-a-vis the acquired lands in Ex.PW1/C, (i) hence fosters, an inference, of, the testification rendered by PW-1 of intra se distance inter se the lands brought to acquisition hereat vis-a-vis the lands borne, in Ex.PW1/C, being proximate, being amenable for imputation of credence thereon, (ii) thereupon, satiation of the imperative parameter, of, occurrence of proximity in location angle inter se the lands borne in Ex.PW1/C vis-a-vis the lands brought to acquisition hereat, is obviously begotten. 6. Even when the aforesaid para meter, of proximity in location angle inter se the land brought to acquisition vis-a-vis lands borne in Ex.PW1/C, begets satiation, the learned Reference Court appears, (i) to merely on anvil, of the apposite notification being issued, on 14.05.2007, whereas the notification for acquisition, of, lands borne in Ex. PW1/C, being issued, merely three months subsequent thereto, (ii) appears to have inaptly construed qua thereupon the parameter of proximity in time angle inter se the apposite notification hereat vis-avis the notification in respect whereof the award borne in Ex.PW1/C, stood pronounced, not begetting satiation, thereupon, it erroneously declined to place reliance thereon. 7. Dehors the above, besides dehors any apparent infirmities embodying Ex.PW1/B, yet would not forestall this Court to place reliance thereon, in making determination(s) of just and fair compensation vis-a-vis the land(s) brought to acquisition. The lands of the petitioners/appellants herein were brought to acquisition under an apposite notification, in respect whereof, award comprised in Ex.PW1/B was pronounced, rather renders the latter award to be apt parameter, for making valid determination(s) of just and fair compensation vis-a-vis the lands brought to acquisition. The Land Acquisition Collector concerned thereunder determined compensation qua the lands brought to acquisition, at diverse rate(s), visa- vis contradistinct/varying categories of land brought to acquisition, inasmuch as, qua Bakhal Aval land AND qua Bakhal Doyam Land, he determined compensation respectively in sum of Rs. The Land Acquisition Collector concerned thereunder determined compensation qua the lands brought to acquisition, at diverse rate(s), visa- vis contradistinct/varying categories of land brought to acquisition, inasmuch as, qua Bakhal Aval land AND qua Bakhal Doyam Land, he determined compensation respectively in sum of Rs. Rs.8,600.24 paise and in a sum of Rs.5,535.78 paise, per square meter, whereas, for land(s) classified as “Banjar Kadeem and Ghasni”, he proceeded to assess their market value, respectively in a sum of Rs.1,186.24 paise and in a sum of Rs.296.56 paise per square meter. The aforesaid diverse determination(s) of compensation amounts, for contradistinct categories of lands, is per se illegal, given a catena of judicial verdicts, making forthright pronouncements, (i) of, when acquired lands through carry different and varying classifications, whereas, they are acquired for a common purpose, (ii) the factum, of theirs bearing contradistinct nomenclature(s) in the apposite classification column of the revenue record , being insignificant, (iii) rather all contradistinct categories of lands being amenable to determination of uniform rate(s) of compensation. Thereupon, when uncontrovertedly, with acquired lands bearing varying categories/classifications, stand acquired for a common purpose, thereupon, bearing in mind the settled principles of law, of, lands upon their acquisition, for a common public purpose, as the lands in the instant case, stood acquired, for widening of Shimla-Mandi, National Highway- 88, thereupon, the effect, of, theirs carrying distinct categorizations or varying classifications, hence waning, (iv) especially when in sequel, to, the completion of the public purpose for which the lands are acquired, inasmuch as on completion of construction of the public road, their diverse classifications and categorizations, hence losing, significance, (v) rather theirs acquiring a common/uniform potentiality, concomitantly, hence, necessitating assessment of uniform/common rates of compensation for each diverse category(ies) of acquired land(s). Obviously, thereupon uniform rates of compensation ought to be assessed, for, different categories of lands or lands bearing different classifications. Since, in contravention of the settled legal position, envisaging assessment of uniform rates of compensation qua lands bearing different categories/classifications, (vi) especially when lands bearing different classification, were, acquired for a common public purpose, the Land Acquisition Collector has proceeded to assess varying or distinct rates of compensation for lands bearing distinct categories or classifications, thereupon, he has irrevered the aforesaid principle of law, hence, both the Reference Court and the Land Acquisition Collector concerned, have committed an impropriety. The said impropriety needs to be undone. 8. The said impropriety needs to be undone. 8. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed and it is held that the rate of compensation for all categories of land, including land(s) of the appellants herein, shall be at the rate assessed qua Bhakal Awal i.e. Rs.8,600.24 paise per square meter along with all the statutory benefits detailed hereinafter:- (a) Interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the market value from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act till the date of award under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. (b) In addition to the market value, the appellants are held entitled to get solatium or compulsory acquisition charges at the rate of 30% on such market value as provided under Section 23(2) of the Act; and (c) Interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act upto one year and thereafter, at the rate of 15% per annum, till payment is made in the Court as provided under Section 34 of the Act. The impugned award is modified accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.