Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1153 (HP)

Union of India through Secretary v. Hetu

2018-06-25

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the parties, submits, that the present lis, is squarely covered, by the decision rendered by this Court, in RFA No. 301 of 2007, titled as State of H.P. and others versus Satya Paul, verdict stands extracted hereinbelow:- “The respondents before learned Reference Court below, aggrieved by the award dated 18.8.2007, passed in Land Reference Petition No. 7-N/4 of 2005, preferred by the respondent herein (petitioner before learned Reference Court), are in appeal before this Court. The Reference Petition, as aforesaid, preferred by the respondent-petitioner, has been decided vide a common award passed in a bunch of references, the lead case whereof is Reference No.5-N/4 of 2005, titled Jagdish Chand Vs. State of H.P. and another. 2. The complaint is that learned Reference Court has erroneously enhanced the compensation with respect to the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 2 lacs per bigha, irrespective of its nature and category. The land bearing Khasra No. 123/2 entered in Khata-khatauni No. 4, measuring 0-7 bighas, situate in village Shargaon, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmour, was acquired for the public purpose, namely construction of Yashwant Nagar- Dhamla (Neripur) Road. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 29.7.1995 and published in H.P.Rajpatra on 9.9.1995. The same was also published in the issue of “Jan Satta”, a Hindi daily dated 11.9.1995 and in that of “Vir Pratap”, again a Hindi daily in its issue dated 10.9.1995. Notifications under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act were also issued subsequently on 31.9.1996, which were published in two newspapers on 15.10.1996 and 23.10.1996. The land Acquisition Collector-appellant No. 2, after following further procedure prescribed under the Act, has announced Award No.40 of 2000 on 31.7.2000 and awarded the compensation with respect to each category of acquired land, as follows:- Sr. No. Class of land Rates per bigha 1. Kuhal Shhamih Rs. 96,348.00 2. Ober Khadi Rs. 71,090.70 3. Ober Garir Khadi Rs. 59,454.00 4. Banjar Jadeed Rs. 19,575.40 5 Banjar Kadim Rs. 9,272.00 6 Ghasni Rs. 6,181.80 7 Nadabil and Gair Mumkin Rs. 1,030.30 3. Learned Additional District Judge has, however, re-determined and re-assessed the market value of the acquired land at the flat rate i.e. Rs. 2 lacs per bigha, irrespective of its nature and category. 4. Ober Garir Khadi Rs. 59,454.00 4. Banjar Jadeed Rs. 19,575.40 5 Banjar Kadim Rs. 9,272.00 6 Ghasni Rs. 6,181.80 7 Nadabil and Gair Mumkin Rs. 1,030.30 3. Learned Additional District Judge has, however, re-determined and re-assessed the market value of the acquired land at the flat rate i.e. Rs. 2 lacs per bigha, irrespective of its nature and category. 4. The legality and validity of the impugned award has been assailed on the grounds, inter alia, that learned Additional District Judge has neither taken into consideration the evidence available on record nor the settled legal principles, and based the findings on surmises and conjectures. The market value of the acquired land determined by the Land Acquisition Collector is stated to be just and reasonable, whereas the enhancement thereof by learned Reference Court below being excessive and on higher side is not legally sustainable. 5. Having regard to the rival submissions and on analyzing the record, this Court finds that learned Additional District Judge has not taken into consideration the evidence comprising oral as well as documentary, including the sale instances produced in evidence by the petitioner, on the grounds that the land sold thereby was not situated in village Sargaon and rather in village Neri Jagela. Also that the sale instances pertain to small pieces of land and as such it has been held that the same cannot be made basis to determine the market value of the acquired land. The reference Court below, however, has placed reliance on the previous award of the Court Ext. PX and while placing reliance thereon, as well as the law applicable, has re-determined the market value of all types of acquired land at the rate of Rs. 2 lacs per bigha. 6. The respondents-State had preferred appeals against re-determination of the market value of all kind of acquired land at the rate of Rs. 2 lacs per bigha against the other right holders, whose land was also acquired for the same purpose and vide the same notification. One of such appeals, RFA No.302 of 2007, pertaining to the land acquired in the same village i.e. Sargaon, came to be decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 24.9.2008. The appeal was dismissed and the impugned award, whereby the Reference Court has re-determined the market value of all types of acquired land at the rate of Rs. The appeal was dismissed and the impugned award, whereby the Reference Court has re-determined the market value of all types of acquired land at the rate of Rs. 2 lacs per bigha and enhanced the compensation accordingly, was affirmed. This Court has also relied upon the judgment passed in RFA No. 302 of 2007,supra,while deciding RFA No 294 of 2007 titled Ramesh Kumar and others Vs. State of H.P. and others, vide judgment dated 17.12.2014. The acquired land of the petitioners in RFA No. 302 of 2007 and also in RFA No. 294 of 2007, as aforesaid, was situated in village Sargaon, where the land of the respondent-petitioner also situates. ] 7. Therefore, learned counsel on both sides are in agreement that the point in issue in this appeal is covered in favour of the respondent-petitioner and against the appellants by the judgment dated 24.9.2008 passed in RFA No. 302 of 2007 and RFA No. 294 of 2007 dated 17.9.2014. Hence, there is no need to go to the factual aspect in detail nor elaboration of the evidence available on record is required. The appeal rather deserves to be dismissed. 8. In view of above, this appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the impugned award is affirmed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.” 2. Consequently, in view of the aforestated submissions’ addressed herebefore also when appeal bearing RFA No. 301 of 2017 appertains to a subject matter holding similarity vis-à-vis the subject matter hereat, and, with the aforesaid appeal standing in terms (supra) hence disposed of by this Court, thereupon, the present appeal preferred herebefore by the appellants herein, is also, disposed of in terms, of the verdict (supra) recorded in RFA No. 301 of 2007 along with connected matters. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.