Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1400 (HP)

Land Acquisition Collector v. Roshan Lal

2018-07-27

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - The appeal preferred on behalf of State of Himachal Pradesh and cross objection filed on behalf of respondents/land owners, are being decided together vide this common judgement, as common issue of facts and law is involved in both. 2. State of Himachal Pradesh has acquired land of land owners-respondents/cross objectors, situated in village Amber, Tehsil & Distt. Solan (H.P.), for public purpose of construction of Jaunaji-Dharja Road, in the year 1986. 3. It is not in dispute that Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for acquiring land was issued on 22.10.1981, but the land in question was taken into possession and utilized for construction of road much prior to that, i.e. on 18.12.1968. 4. Being aggrieved by the award passed by Land Acquisition Collector, land owners had preferred reference under Section 18 of the Act, wherein learned Additional District Judge, Solan, vide award dated 24.11.1999, had awarded compensation at a uniform rate of Rs. 25,000/- per bigha, irrespective of classification and category of land alongwith statutory interest and benefit under the Act. In addition, he had also awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of possession of land till expiry of one year and thereafter, at the rate of 15% per annum on the enhanced amount till the payment. 5. The aforesaid award of the Reference Court was assailed by State of Himachal Pradesh in this High Court by filing RFA No.342 of 2000, titled LAC versus Roshan Lal and RFA No.4 of 2001, titled LAC versus Narda Devi. At the time of hearing of these appeals, as recorded in the judgment dated 04.12.2009, passed in these appeals, only point urged by learned Advocate General to assail the award dated 24.11.1999, on behalf of the State, was that the Reference Court had committed error by awarding interest from the date of possession and not from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. After considering judgments on the point in issue as raised by learned Advocate General, these appeals were remanded to the Reference Court, on the following terms: ".... (i) the appeals are remanded to the Reference Court, i.e. the Court of learned District Judge, Solan. After considering judgments on the point in issue as raised by learned Advocate General, these appeals were remanded to the Reference Court, on the following terms: ".... (i) the appeals are remanded to the Reference Court, i.e. the Court of learned District Judge, Solan. (ii) On remand, the Reference Court will redetermine the compensation in accordance with the decision in Narotam Ram V. Land Acquisition Collector and others , (2002) 3 ShimLC 45 ; Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and another V. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another , (2002) 1 SCC 142 and R.L. Jain(D) by Lrs V. DDA and others , (2004) 4 SCC 79 and Land Acquisition Officer V. Hemanagouda and others , (2005) 12 SCC 443 . (iii) The claimants will be at liberty to establish their claim for reimbursement of money/ compensation for use of heir property by the State without recourse to proceedings under the Act. For this purpose the claimants as well as the State would be free to adduce evidence in accordance with law. It is clarified that no other evidence except that which is for determination of compensation for use of the land and deprivation of its use by the claimants by the State prior to notification under Section 4 of the Act will be allowed. (iv) No evidence will be required for proving the date of taking possession which stands established from the record." 6. As evident from the terms of reference of remand, the land owners were granted liberty by the Court to establish their claim for reimbursement of amount of compensation for use and occupation charges as damages, with further liberty to the parties to adduce evidence to substantiate their respective claims on this issue in accordance with law. At the time of remand of aforesaid appeals, it was clarified that fresh award shall remain confined only to the extent as indicated in terms of remand and other part of the award shall not be changed. 7. The Reference Court in compliance of the order of this Court, after considering the evidence led by parties, decided the issue of damages and compensation and has awarded use and occupation charges to land owners for utilization of their land since 18.12.1968, till the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, i.e. 22.10.1981, as damages at the rate Rs. 1000/- per bigha per annum with interest @ 7.5% per annum thereupon from the date of possession till payment thereof. 8. Now, the State has assailed the entire award in this appeal. As discussed hereinabove, in appeal RFA No.342 of 2000, preferred by the State against the award dated 24.11.1999, passed by the Reference Court, at the time of arguments, the State had agitated only one issue that the Reference Court had committed mistake by awarding interest from the date of possession which was taken prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, whereupon this High Court had remanded the case to the Reference Court to decide the issue of damages for the period between date of taking of possession of the land till issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, with further observation that rest of the award shall remain intact. The issue of awarding compensation for acquisition of land @ Rs. 25,000/- per bigha by the Reference Court vide award dated 24.11.1999 was not further agitated in earlier appeal RFA No.342 of 2000 and therefore, the State has lost right to agitate the said issue in present appeal. Thus, valuation of acquired land at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per bigha for determining compensation irrespective of category and classification of the land, has attained finality. 9. Land was acquired for construction of road. Another plea of the State to assail the award on the ground that compensation was to be determined on the basis of classification and category of land, is also not tenable for the aforesaid reason as the same was not agitated in the previous appeal. Even otherwise, it is settled law of the land that when land is acquired for a purpose which has no relevance with classification of the land, like construction of road, the compensation is to be paid at a uniform rate for all kinds of land irrespective of its classification. 10. Issue with regard to quantum of damages to be determined at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per bigha per annum, as awarded by the Reference Court vide impugned award dated 11.06.2010, passed in sequel to remand by the Court, is now to be adjudicated in present appeal. 10. Issue with regard to quantum of damages to be determined at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per bigha per annum, as awarded by the Reference Court vide impugned award dated 11.06.2010, passed in sequel to remand by the Court, is now to be adjudicated in present appeal. On this issue, it is submitted on behalf of State that there is no material or basis on record to determine the damages at the rate granted by the Reference Court for calculation of damages and this rate has been fixed only on the basis of guess work without any evidence and this warrants to be interfered with. 11. Land owners have also filed cross objection in this appeal for enhancement of the damages granted by the Reference Court and have prayed for damages at the rate of Rs. 9,600/- per bigha per annum with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 12. Scrutiny of record reveals that there is no convincing evidence to award either Rs. 1000/- per bigha per annum or Rs. 9600/- per bigha per annum. Any how, land owners are entitled for damages for dispossession from their land prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Now, issue with regard to quantum of damages to be awarded for the period from the date of possession by the State to the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, is no longer res-integra. The Apex Court, in similar circumstances, in case Balwan Singh and Others versus Land Acquisition Collector and Another , (2016) 13 SCC 412 , after considering and relying upon judgment passed in cases R.L. Jain(D) By LRs. versus DDA and Another , (2004) 4 SCC 79 ; Madishetti Bala Ramul (Dead) By LRs versus Land Acquisition Office , (2007) 9 SCC 650 and Tahera Khotoon and Others versus Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officers , (2014) 13 SCC 613 , has awarded an additional interest by way of damages @ 15% per annum from taking the actual possession till the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Act on the market value of land determined. 13. In the present case, undisputedly possession was taken for construction of road for public purpose on 18.12.1968, whereas notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 22.10.1981. 13. In the present case, undisputedly possession was taken for construction of road for public purpose on 18.12.1968, whereas notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 22.10.1981. Therefore, respondents/crossobjectors are awarded additional interest @ 15% per annum on the market value of land fixed by the Reference Court, since 18.12.1968 till the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, i.e. 22.10.1981, as damages for utilization of land for road construction before issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. 14. In view of the above discussion, appeal filed by the State is dismissed and the cross objection filed by respondents/cross objectors are allowed in the above terms and impugned award is modified to that extent. The State is directed to calculate the damages accordingly by 31st October, 2018 and pay the same to the respondents/ cross-objectors on or before 31st December, 2018. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.