Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 771 (HP)

Munshi Ram v. State of H. P.

2017-07-06

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2017
Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed against the impugned award rendered on 23.06.2006 by the learned District Judge, Solan, H.P. in Land Reference Petition No. 19-S/4 of 2004, whereby, he, qua the acquired lands of the landowners/appellants herein, assessed compensation constituted in a sum of Rs.80,000/- per bigha also thereupon he levied all the imperative statutory benefits. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants herein/landowners, has contended that “though Ex. P-10”, comprised the report prepared by the Field Kanungo, also given its standing proven, hence concomitantly enjoined imputation of reliance thereon “by” the learned Reference Court, yet the learned Reference Court “not” placing reliance thereon, renders its award to warrant interference. It stands pronounced in Ex.P-10, that khasra Nos. 527/4/2, 527/4/3 and Khasra No. 527/4/4, cumulatively measuring 3 bighas 8 biswas, suffering damage, on account of road construction activity standing undertaken by the respondents concerned upon proximate thereto located acquired lands of the petitioners/appellants herein. However, the mere fact of Ex.P-10 standing proven by the “its author” would not per se render an inference that both khasra Nos. 527/4/2, 527/4/3 and Khasra No. 527/4/4, cumulatively holding an area of 3 bighas 8 biswas, hence ipso facto suffering damage on account of road construction activity under taken upon the acquired lands, acquired lands whereof, occur in proximity to the aforesaid khasra numbers, “preeminently” when evidence with respect to the quantum of damage encumbered thereon besides evidence qua the classifications of the land borne on the aforesaid khasra numbers, besides prominently when evidence with respect to the hitherto crop yielding capacity of the land borne on the aforesaid khasra numbers, hence suffering a sharp decline, in sequel, to any purported damage encumbered upon lands borne on the aforesaid khasra numbers, “remains omnibusly” unadduced. Reiteratedly, want of adduction of best evidence in respect of the claim of the appellant anvilled upon Ex. Reiteratedly, want of adduction of best evidence in respect of the claim of the appellant anvilled upon Ex. P-10, “cannot” give any capitalization to the counsel for the appellants “to” contend that any damage, stood purportedly encumbered upon the appellants' land borne on the aforesaid khasra numbers, “by” road construction activity undertaken by the respondents concerned “upon” the acquired lands, acquired lands whereof “stand located in proximity thereto”, nor he can canvass that the crop yielding capacity of the lands borne therein, suffering a sharp decline nor it can be concluded that the grass, if any, occurring thereon becoming unfit for its being used as fodder for the cattle. 3. Be that as it may, the acquired land stood located in Dhundhan. The learned Reference Court while adjudging compensation payable qua the acquired lands had depended upon the apposite material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Collector “for its” hence alike the award pronounced by the Land Acquisition Collector “making” a similar announcement with respect to compensation amount payable with respect to the acquired lands “of” the appellants. The appellant has been unable to adduce evidence that the relevant material concurrently relied by both, the Land Acquisition Collector and by the Learned Reference Court “for” theirs determining alike compensation amount vis-a-vis the acquired lands, “hence” suffering from any perversity, arising from the factum of the prices of lands borne thereon “not” being relatable to the acquired lands, intra se unrelatability whereof occurring for want of satiation of the relevant applicable parameters, of (a) lands in respect whereof, the relevant price indexes occur in the relevant material “not” holding proximity either in location angle vis-a-vis the lands acquired “nor” theirs holding intra se proximity in time angle “given” there occurring no evident intra se proximity in timer inter se the preparation of the relevant material vis- a-vis the time of initiation of statutory proceeding for acquisition of the appellants' land. In aftermath, the concurrently placed reliance by both, the Land Acquisition Collector and by the learned Reference Court upon the relevant material is both apt and tenable. 4. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that it was inappropriate “for the” learned Reference Court “to” discard sale exemplars borne in Ex. P-7, Ex. In aftermath, the concurrently placed reliance by both, the Land Acquisition Collector and by the learned Reference Court upon the relevant material is both apt and tenable. 4. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that it was inappropriate “for the” learned Reference Court “to” discard sale exemplars borne in Ex. P-7, Ex. P-8 and Ex.P- 9., wherein the lands borne therein hold prices higher than the ones revealed in the relevant material concurrently relied upon by the Land Acquisition Collector and by the Learned Reference Court, hence, the aforesaid exhibits warranted meteing of reliance thereon “by the” learned Reference Court “for” its adjudging compensation for the acquired lands hence in a sum/figure higher than the one assessed in respect thereto by the Land Acquisition Collector, whereas, its omitting to do so, renders the award to warrant interference. However, the aforesaid submission addressed before this Court by the learned counsel “for the appellants” warrants rejection, as the lands borne in sale exemplars, comprised in Ex. P-7 to Ex. P-8, are all located respectively in village Palayani or in Pargana Sayar, whereas, the acquired lands occur in village Dhundhan, consequently, with the acquired lands standing located in a Mohal distinct vis-a-vis the lands occurring in sale exemplars aforesaid, renders discardings thereof by the learned Reference Court to not suffer from any infirmity, “imperatively”, when no evidence stand adduced with respect to satiation being begotten of the indispensable enjoined parameters “of theirs” evidently occurring close intra se proximity in location inter se the location of lands borne in the sale exemplars vis-a-vis the location of acquired lands. Consequently, the learned Reference Court in not placing reliance upon the aforesaid sale exemplars “has not” committed any illegality. 5. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant appeal. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. In sequel, the impugned award is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of.