Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1136 (HP)

Roshan Lal v. Land Acquisition Collector

2018-06-20

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The instant appeal is directed, against, the award pronounced by the learned Reference Court, upon, Land Reference Petition No. 2 of 2004, whereunder, the the learned Reference Court, had, determined the market value of the land, brought to acquisition @ Rs.18,000/- per marla, and, awarded thereon, the apt compulsory acquisition charges @30% of the market value of the land, also, on the aforesaid enhanced amount of compensation, it, had, assessed interest @12% per annum, for the period commencing, on and from the date of issuance of notice under Section 4(i) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended with much vigour, before this Court, that, in, the learned reference Court, not placing reliance, upon, sale exemplars, respectively borne in Ex.P-1, and, in Ex.P- is, thoroughly inappropriate, (I) given a co-ordinate bench of this Court while pronouncing, a decision upon RFA No. 334 of 2006, as arose, before this Court, against, the award pronounced, upon the landowners concerned, in land reference petition No. 1 of 2004, (a) AND the land borne therein, appertaining, to, a notification bearing commonality, vis-a-vis, the notification hereat, (b) and, the co-ordinate bench of this Court, while, making the apt pronouncement, its placing reliance upon the aforesaidexhibits, bearing Ex. P-l, and, Ex.P-2, thereupon, alike the co-ordinate bench of this Court, placing reliance upon Ex.P- 1, and, Ex.P-2, both exhibits whereof, are akin to hereat exhibits P-l, and, P-2 , (ii) hence, it being imperative also for this Court, to place reliance, upon, the apt aforesaid sale exemplars, given theirs rather bearing, the closest apt analogity, inter se the Land Reference Petitions, wherefrom hence arose RFA No.334 of 2006, vis-a-vis, the instant land reference petition, wherefrom, the extant RFA No. 117 of 2010, hence arises. 3. 3. Before proceeding, to, accept the aforesaid submission addressed, before this Court, by the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, it is imperative, to allude to the trite evidence, existing on record, in display, of, the apt sale exemplars, respectively borne in Ex.P-l, and, in Ex.P-2, hence, satiating the twin principles of (a) date, of, execution thereof bearing the closest proximity vis-a-vis the date, of, issuance of notification, under Section 4 of the Act, and (b) the lands borne therein also holding the apt locational proximity, vis-a-vis, the location of the lands of the landowners, as, stood brought to acquisition. Evidence in satiation thereof, is borne in the testification, comprised in the examination-in- chief, of, one Roshan Lai (PW-1), who during, course thereof, tendered and enabled, the exhibition, of, the sale exemplars aforesaid, and, who, thereafter, has made a firm testification, as borne, in, his examination-in-chief, of the land borne in the aforesaid exhibits, also holding the apt locational proximity, vis- a-vis, the acquired lands. The aforesaid testification, borne in the examination-in-chief, of PW-1, remained un-attempted, to be ridden, of its veracity, even during, the course of his, being held to cross- examination by the learned DA concerned, nor the respondents adduced any evidence, wherefrom, emanations occur, for hence rebutting the afore rendered unrebutted testification, occurring, in his examination-in-chief. In aftermath, the apt sale exemplars, respectively borne in Ex.P-1, and, in Ex.P-2, are held to be satiating the twin principles (a) of their execution occurring in close proximity, to, the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act and (b) the lands borne therein, holding, the apt locational proximity, vis-a-vis, the location of the lands, as, brought to acquisition. In sequel, hence, reliance is amenable, to be placed on Exts. P-l, and, P-2, whereas, in the learned reference Court, rather not placing reliance thereon, has hence committed a gross illegality, whereas, it constituted the apt evidence, germane for pronouncing a just and equitable decision, upon, the issue appertaining, to the fair determination, of market value of the lands, as, stood brought to acquisition. 4. P-l, and, P-2, whereas, in the learned reference Court, rather not placing reliance thereon, has hence committed a gross illegality, whereas, it constituted the apt evidence, germane for pronouncing a just and equitable decision, upon, the issue appertaining, to the fair determination, of market value of the lands, as, stood brought to acquisition. 4. Be that as it may, the effect of the aforesaid inference, is, that the judgment pronounced, by the coordinate bench of this Court in RFA No.334 of 2006, as arose before this Court, against, a verdict rendered, upon, the Land Reference Petition No. 1 of 2004, being construable to be, vis-a-vis, the apt notification, hence, holding commonality, with, the notification hereat, whereunder lands hereat, stood acquired, (i) thereupon, in consonance therewith, this Court, as directed therein, after making 30% deductions, upon the market value, of the lands borne, in Ex.P-Pl and in Ex. P-2, hence determines the per maria market value of the land acquired @ Rs.29,145/- per maria, also in consonance therewith, all statutory benefits accruing thereon, are meteable to the appellants herein. 5. The learned Reference Court, had omitted, to, in consonance, with the mandate of Section 34 of the Act, contemplating, the levying of interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of taking of possession of the acquired land, till its realization, hence make the apposite levyngs thereon, and, also omitted, to, in consonance with the mandate of Section 28 of the Act, to hence levy interest, on, the enhanced compensation amount @ 9% per annum, from the date of taking of possession of the acquired land, till realization of the excess amount, both the provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "28. Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation. Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation. If the sum which, in the opinion of the Court, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Collector did award as compensation, the award of the Court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of [nine per centum] per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court: Provided that the award of the Court may also direct that where such excess or any part thereof is paid into Court after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into Court before the date of such expiry. 34. Payment of interest. 34. Payment of interest. When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of [nine per centum] per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited: Provided that if such compensation or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry." (i) whereas with the possession of the acquired land, being evidently taken on 8.3.2004, and, the compensation amount, being deposited on 30.07.2004, thereupon, interest @ 9% per annum, from, 8.3.2004 uptill 30.07.2004, as contemplated, by Section 34 of the Act, is leviable upon the compensation amount, as, determined by the land acquisition Collector, (ii) Apart therefrom, interest, on the enhanced amount, of compensation, within, the mandate, of the statutory contemplations, as, borne in Section 28 of the Act, is also leviabe upon the enhanced amount, of compensation, and, @ 9% per annum from 30.07.2004, till, the deposit, of the apt amount. 6. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed, and, it is held that the rate of compensation, for the land(s), as, brought to acquisition, shall be at the rate Rs.29.145/- per maria along with all the statutory benefits leviable, on the enhanced amount, and more particularly in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sunder versus Union of India, (2001)7 SCC 211 . All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.