Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1904 (HP)

General Manager, Northern Railway v. Kamla Devi

2018-11-01

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. 1. These appeals arising out of a common award dated 02.04.2016, passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, (hereinafter referred to as 'Reference Court') in Land Reference No. : 1-IV/2012 RBT No. 152/13/12 titled as Joginder Singh (deceased) through his Lrs. v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and another; Land Reference No. : 2-IV/12 RBT No. 153/2013/12 titled as Satya Prakash (deceased) through his Lrs. v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and another; Land Reference No. : 3-IV/12 RBT No. 154/2013/12 titled as Satya Parkash (deceased) through his Lrs. v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and another; Land Reference No. : 4-IV/12 RBT No. 155/2013/12 titled as Satya Parkash (deceased) through his Lrs. v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and another; Land Reference No. : 5-IV/12 RBT No. 156/2013/12 titled as Satya Parkash (deceased) through his Lrs. v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and another; Land Reference No. : 4-IV/12 RBT No. 155/2013/12 titled as Satya Parkash (deceased) through his Lrs. v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and another; Land Reference No. : 5-IV/12 RBT No. 156/2013/12 titled as Satya Parkash (deceased) through his Lrs. v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and another; Land Reference No. : 6-IV/12 RBT No. 157/2013/12 titled as Manohar Singh and others v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and another; Land Reference No. : 7-IV/12 RBT No. 158/2013/12 titled as Iqbal Singh and others v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and another; Land Reference No. : 8-IV/12 RBT No. 159/2013/12 titled as Iqbal Singh & others v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and another; Land Reference No. : 9-IV/12 RBT No. 160/2013/12 titled as Iqbal Singh and others v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and another; Land Reference No. : 10-IV/12 RBT No. 161/2013/12 titled as Punya Devi & others v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and another; Land Reference No. : 11-IV/12 RBT No. 162/2013/12 titled as Punya Devi v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and another; Land Reference No. : 12-IV/12 RBT No. 163/2013/12 titled as Karam Singh & another v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and another; Land Reference No. : 13-IV/12 RBT No. 164/2013/12 titled as Rustam Singh and another v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and another; Land Reference No. : 14-IV/12 RBT No. 165/2013/12 titled as Dalbag Singh and another v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and another; Land Reference No. : 15-IV/12 RBT No. 166/2013/12 titled as Balwant Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and another; Land Reference No: 16-IV/12 RBT No. 167/2013/12, titled as Vidya Devi v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and another; Land Reference No. : 17-IV/12 RBT No. 168/2013/12 titled as Dhian Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and another; Land Reference No. : 18-IV/12 RBT No. 104/2013/12 titled as Paro Devi & another v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and another; Land Reference No. : 19-IV/12 RBT No. 103/2013/12, titled as Surinder Singh & others v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and another; Land Reference No. : 20-IV/12 RBT No. 117/2013/12 titled as Shakin Biwi v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and another; Land Reference No. : 21-IV/12 RBT No. 116/2013/12 titled as Ranjeet Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and another; Land Reference No. : 22-IV/12 RBT No. 115/2013/12 titled as Nazeer Biwi v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and another; Land Reference No. : 23-IV/12 RBT No. 114/2013/12 titled as Vinod Kumar & others v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and another; Land Reference No. : 24-IV/12 RBT No. 113/2013/12 titled as Vinod Kumar v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and another; Land Reference No. : 25-IV/12 RBT No. 112/2013/12, titled as Manohar Lal and another v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and another; Land Reference No. : 26-IV/12 RBT No. 111/2013/12, titled as Manohar Lal & another v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and another; Land Reference No. : 27-IV/12 RBT No. 110/2013/12 titled as Rattan Chand & others v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and another; Land Reference No. : 28-IV/12 RBT No. 100/2013/12, titled as Rukaman Deen v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and others; Land Reference No. : 29-IV/12 RBT No. 102/2013/12 titled as Rattani Devi v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and others; Land Reference No. : 30-IV/12 RBT No. 101/2013/12 titled as Krishna Devi (deceased) through her Lrs. & others v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and others; Land Reference No. : 31-IV/12 RBT No. 99/2013/12 titled as Krishna Devi (deceased) through her Lrs. & others v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and others; Land Reference No. : 32-IV/12 RBT No. 109/2013/12 titled as Shaukat Ali v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and others; Land Reference No. : 33-IV/12 RBT No. 108/2013/12 titled as Sugriva Nand Ji v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and another; Land Reference No. : 34-IV/12 RBT No. 107/2013/12, titled as Ramesh Chand & another v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and others; Land Reference No. : 36-IV/12 RBT No. 106/2013/12 titled as Parkash Chand v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and others and Land Reference No. : 37-IV/12 RBT No. 118/2013/12 titled as Amir Ali v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and others; are being decided by this common judgment, as common questions of law and facts, based on the identical evidence led in lead case, are involved therein. 2. Government of Himachal Pradesh, for expansion/construction of Nangal-Talwara Broad Gauge Railway Line, had acquired land in village Athwan, Tehsil Amb, District Una, after initiating acquisition process by issuing notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which was published on 24.04.2009. After completing the process under the Act, the Land Acquisition Collector, (Railway), Una, Distt. Una (hereinafter referred to as Land Acquisition Collector) had announced Award No. 3/2009-10 under Section 11 of the Act on 06.05.2010 assessing the market value of the acquired land on the basis of nature and classification as under:- Sr. No. Class of land Sq.m. Rate per sq. m. within radius of 40 m of N.H. Rate per beyond 40 m of N.H. (i) Kuhli Abbal/Gair Mumkin Abadi. 575/- 450- (ii) Barani Abbal 560/- 450/- (iii) Banjar Kadeem/other Gair Mumkin 400/- 300/- 3. Land owners/claimants, for enhancement of compensation, had preferred reference petitions under Section 18 of the Act which were clubbed together, wherein evidence was led only in one lead case, i.e. Land Reference No. : 1-IV/2012 RBT No. 152/13/12, titled as Joginder Singh (deceased) through his Lrs. v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and another. After considering the evidence on record Reference Court vide the impugned award has re-determined uniform value of land at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per square meter alongwith statutory benefits thereupon irrespective of classification and category of the land. 4. v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and another. After considering the evidence on record Reference Court vide the impugned award has re-determined uniform value of land at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per square meter alongwith statutory benefits thereupon irrespective of classification and category of the land. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with award passed by the Reference Court, Northern Railway has preferred present appeals under consideration. 5. Land owners/claimants have examined four witnesses to substantiate their claim. PW-1 Anil Kumar and PW-4 Neeraj Kumar are Architects, who have been examined to establish the valuation of buildings/structures of Satya Parkash and Iqbal Singh. PW-2 Sat Pal is Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat, who has been examined to prove the nature, location and potentiality of the acquired land. PW-3 Rameshwar Dutt, one of the landlords/claimants, has been examined on behalf of all the landlords/claimants to substantiate their claim. 6. The Northern Railway has examined RW-1 Madan Lal, Kanungo (Railway), Una, Himachal Pradesh to support valuation of Land Acquisition Collector and to rebut the claim of the land owners. 7. For establishing claim with respect to structures/buildings of Satya Parkash, PW-1 has proved on record valuation Ext. PW-1/A, description of property Ext. PW-1/B, ground floor plan Ext. PW-1/C and estimate Ext. PW/1/D. Similarly, abstracts of cost of two structures/buildings of Iqbal Singh have been proved as Ext. PW-4/A & Ext. PW/4/D alongwith calculations thereof Ext. PW/4/B & Ext. PW-4/E and site plans Ext. PW/4/C and Ext. PW-4/F. Jamabandis of land in question have also been placed on record as Ext. P-1 to Ext. P-23. As an exemplar transaction, land owners have put reliance on award passed by the Reference Court in another case bearing Land Reference No. 8/2013/2012, titled as Chain Singh & another v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) & others (Ext. P-24), relating to acquisition of land in village Adarsh Nagar, Tehsil Amb for the same purpose initiated vide notification under Section 4 of the Act, dated 24.04.2009, wherein, the Reference Court had awarded uniform rate of compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per square meter. Reliance has also been placed on another award passed by the Reference Court in Land Reference RBT No. 49/2013/12, titled as Yash Pal v. The Land Acquisition Collector & another (Ext. 1,000/- per square meter. Reliance has also been placed on another award passed by the Reference Court in Land Reference RBT No. 49/2013/12, titled as Yash Pal v. The Land Acquisition Collector & another (Ext. P-25), wherein also, for acquisition of land for the same purpose by issuing notification under Section 4 of the Act, published on 24.04.2009, value of the land acquired in Village Kalroohi, Tehsil Amb, Distt. Una has been determined at uniform rate to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- per square meters. 8. In its evidence, Northern Railway has placed on record copy of notification under Section 4 of the Act (Ext. RW-1/A) and notification under Section 6 of the Act (Ext. RW-1/B), Award No. 3/2009-10, passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (Ext. RW-1/C) alongwith Vivaran Talika 19, under Section 18 of the Act (Ex. RW-1/D) but related to Joginder Singh only. Further reliance has also been placed by Northern Railways on Sale Deeds Ext. R-1 dated 12.06.2008, R-2 dated 19.03.2009, R-3 dated 13.10.2007, R-4 dated 04.04.2008, R-5 dated 30.05.2008 and R-6 dated 11.06.2008. 9. Reference Court has taken into consideration exemplar Award Ext. P-25 pertaining to the adjoining village and has awarded the same rate i.e. Rs. 1,000/- per square meter in present case also. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Reference Court has committed an illegality by relying upon the awards Ex. P-24 and Ext. P-25 belonging to different villages as there is no evidence on record to establish that nature and potential of the land in Village Athwan and that of Villages Adarsh Nagar and Kalroohi was the same and in absence of evidence that Villages Adarsh Nagar and Kalroohi are adjacent to Village Athwan these awards could not have been taken into consideration for determining the value of acquired land. According to him, land under acquisition, in the present case, is different in nature and there is no evidence of similarity of the same with the land of villages involved in Ext. P-24 and Ext. P-25 and, therefore, for different nature and potentiality of land, compensation at different rate is required to be determined. 11. According to him, land under acquisition, in the present case, is different in nature and there is no evidence of similarity of the same with the land of villages involved in Ext. P-24 and Ext. P-25 and, therefore, for different nature and potentiality of land, compensation at different rate is required to be determined. 11. Judgment of the apex Court in case titled as Jai Prakash and others v. Union of India, reported in (1997) 9 SCC 510 , has also been relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant(s), wherein it has been held that merely because in some neighbouring villages, valuation has been made at a higher rate, it cannot be said that the claimants-land owners must also be given the same rate of compensation. 12. Reliance has also been placed by learned counsel for the appellants on para 9 of the judgment rendered by the apex Court in case titled as Kanwar Singh and others v. Union of India, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 136 , wherein the Apex Court has held that generally, there would be different situation and potentiality of land situated in two different villages and unless it is proved that the situation and potentiality of the land in two different villages are the same, the same rate of compensation, as awarded to the land owners of one village cannot be granted to the land owners of the another village for the acquisition of land for the same purpose. 13. Pronouncement of the apex Court in case titled as Manoj Kumar etc. v. State of Haryana, reported in 2017 SCC Online SC 1262, has also been relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants wherein also it has been held that in absence of evidence of similarity of nature and potential of the land, previous judgment and award cannot be made basis for awarding same compensation to the land owners of the adjacent villages. 14. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for land owners/claimants while referring the judgment, titled as Ali Mohammad Beigh & other v. State of Jammu and Kashmir reported in (2017) 4 SCC 717 , have justified the value re-determined by the Reference Court on the basis of Award Ext. 14. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for land owners/claimants while referring the judgment, titled as Ali Mohammad Beigh & other v. State of Jammu and Kashmir reported in (2017) 4 SCC 717 , have justified the value re-determined by the Reference Court on the basis of Award Ext. P-24, with submissions that there is ample evidence on record to infer that the value of land in Village Athwan is equivalent to the value of land of Villages Adarsh Nagar and Kalroohi and thus keeping in view the nature and contents of the evidence on record Reference Court has rightly awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per square meters, as awarded in Ext. P-24 and Ext. P-25. It is further contended that the Award passed in Yash Pal's case Ext. P-25, has attained finality, as the same has been affirmed by this Court vide judgment dated 26.07.2018, passed in RFA No. 388 of 2016 alongwith connected matters, titled as General Manager, Northern Railways v. Yash Pal and another. 15. The Apex Court in case titled as Periyar and Par-keekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala, reported in (1991) 4, SCC 195, has held that when the Courts are called upon to fix the market value of the land in compulsory acquisition, the best evidence of the value of property is the sale of acquired land to which the claimant himself is a party, in its absence the sales of the neighbouring lands; and the transaction relating to the acquired land of recent dates or in the neighbourhood lands that possessed of similar potentiality of fertility or other advantageous features are relevant pieces of evidence. 16. The Apex Court in case titled as Special Land Acquisition Officer Kheda and another v. Vasudev Chandrashankar and another, reported in (1997) 11 SCC 218 has ruled that award passed by Reference Court in another case subject to certain conditions, also offers a comparable base for determination of the compensation. 17. Ratio of law in above referred pronouncement is that in absence of availability of comparable sales in village/area, of which land is under acquisition, transaction relates to acquired land of recent dates or same dates in the neighbourhood lands, that possessed similar potentiality of fertility or other advantageous factors, are also relevant piece of evidence. 17. Ratio of law in above referred pronouncement is that in absence of availability of comparable sales in village/area, of which land is under acquisition, transaction relates to acquired land of recent dates or same dates in the neighbourhood lands, that possessed similar potentiality of fertility or other advantageous factors, are also relevant piece of evidence. However, for that purpose, nature and potentiality of land in two different villages should be the same for awarding the same rate of compensation in acquisition of land for the same purpose. 18. It also now well settled that where the purpose for acquisition of land is common and the acquired land is to be put in use for one and the same purpose irrespective of its nature and classification, an uniform rate notwithstanding the nature and classification of land is to be awarded for the said land. (See: LAC and another v. Bhoop Ram and another, reported in 1997 (2) Shimla Law Cases, 229, Smt. Gulabi & others v. State of H.P., reported in AIR 1998 HP 9 , Housing Board v. Ram Lal and others, reported in 2003 (3) Shimla Law Cases 64, Union of India v. Harinder Pal Singh and others, reported in 2005 (12) SCC 564; Executive Engineer and another v. Dila Ram, reported in Latest HLJ 2008 (HP), 1007, G.M. Northern Railways v. Gulzar Singh and others, reported in Latest HLJ 2014 (HP) 775, Dadu Ram v. Land Acquisition Collector and others, reported in 2016 2 ILR 636 (HP). 19. As per Section 25 of the Act, the amount of compensation awarded by the Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act. (Also see Subh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and another (2010) 1 SCC 444 ). 20. Further it is also settled that when the purpose of acquisition is common and no developmental activity is required to be carried out for putting it for the said purpose, compensation is to be awarded at uniform rate. (see Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (dead) by Lrs v. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789 , Himmat Singh and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another (2013) 16 SCC 392 , Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (dead) by Legal Representatives and others v. State of Karnataka and another (2015) 10 SCC 469 .) 21. (see Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (dead) by Lrs v. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789 , Himmat Singh and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another (2013) 16 SCC 392 , Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (dead) by Legal Representatives and others v. State of Karnataka and another (2015) 10 SCC 469 .) 21. Law with respect to allowing or disallowing the deduction on account of development charges is also no longer res-integra and stands settled by the Apex Court in Hemant Singh's case supra and Union of India and others v. N.S. Rathnam and sons (2015) 10 SCC 681 , wherein it has been held that when for using the land to the purpose for which it is acquired, no developmental activity is undertaken by the benefciary, no question of expenditure for development thereon would arise and therefore, in such case, deduction by way of development charges is unpermissible as where there is no developmental activity there is no reason to deduct development charges. 22. Out of six sale deeds Ext. R-1 to Ext. R-6, Ext. R-3 is dated 12.10.2007, which is beyond the period of twelve months from date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act and thus is not proximate in time as per adopted practice for determination of value of land. Otherwise also, value of land on the basis of sale deed becomes at the rate of Rs. 26.04 per square meters, which is less than the value determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. Similarly, value of land on the basis of other sale deeds become at the Rs. 35.15, Rs. 36.10, Rs. 197.96, Rs. 261.19 and Rs. 26.99 per square meter, respectively, the average whereof becomes at the rate of Rs. 111.46 per square meter. Highest value in these sale deeds is Rs. 261.19 per square meter which again less than that value determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. Value of land on the basis of these sale deeds either singly or collectively after calculating average value becomes to be lesser value determined by the Land Acquisition Collector and award of compensation on the basis of which is impermissible under Section 25 of the Act, hence these sale deeds have been rightly ignored by the Reference Court. 23. Value of land on the basis of these sale deeds either singly or collectively after calculating average value becomes to be lesser value determined by the Land Acquisition Collector and award of compensation on the basis of which is impermissible under Section 25 of the Act, hence these sale deeds have been rightly ignored by the Reference Court. 23. As discussed supra, in absence of availability of exemplar sale deeds pertaining to the village, land whereof is under acquisition, exemplar sale deeds of adjoining villages can be taken into consideration. The principle also applies equally to the awards, pertaining to adjoining villages, passed during acquisition of land in these villages and such awards can also be taken into consideration for determining the value of land under acquisition in adjacent village either for awarding identical compensation if nature and potentiality of lands of both villages is similar or after making appropriate deductions in cases, where similarity of nature and potentiality of lands in both villages is not established. 24. PW-2 Satpal, in his examination-in-chief submitted by way of affidavit has deposed that village Athwan is a part of economic zone, Una surrounded by Amb Industrial Area in the East, Gagret Industrial area in the West, villages Kalroohi and Mubarakpur in the North and village Adarsh Nagar, Amb in the South and is situated on National Highway Amb to Hashiarpur and all government offices/institutions of Sub Division Amb are near the land of this village under acquisition. In cross-examination, he has stated that his house is situated in village Kalroohi and village Adhwan is also a part of village Kalroohi. 25. PW-3 Rameshwar Dutt in his examination-in-chief has corroborated the statement of PW-2 Satpal with further clarification that acquired land is situated in between the villages Adarsh Nagar Amb and Kalroohi and on account of location and quality, this land was the best land in the area. The fact stated by PW-2 Satpal and PW-3 Rameshwar Dutt, with regard to location of the land in question as well as the best quality of the same in comparison to other lands in surroundings, has not been questioned in cross-examination. From the oral evidence on record, it is apparent that the land under acquisition of village Athwan is located in between Adarsh Nagar Amb and Kalroohi. From the oral evidence on record, it is apparent that the land under acquisition of village Athwan is located in between Adarsh Nagar Amb and Kalroohi. Village Athwan is also having the identical facilities of electricity, water like Adarsh Nagar Amb and Village Kalroohi and also that the said land was having the potential of development as industrial/residential/commercial area, as the same is surrounded by industries on three sides. Further, the land is also situated near the National Highway like the land of villages Kalroohi and Adarsh Nagar. Not only this, the Land Acquisition Collector, at the time of acquisition of the land of village Kalroohi, has rated the value of land of village Athwan and Kalroohi almost of the similar value. The said fact is evident on comparison of rate determined by LAC in present case as reproduced in para 2 with the value of land of village Kalroohi determined by him, which is reproduced in award Ext. P-25, which reads as under:- Sr. No. Class of land Rate per sq. m. within radius of 40 m of N.H. Rate per sq.m. beyond 40 m of N.H. (i) Kuhli Abbal/Gair Mumkin Abadi. 575/-(Athwan) 450/-(Athwan) (ii) Barani Abbal 600/- (Kalroohi) 550/- (Kalroohi) 450/-(Athwan) 450/- (Kalroohi) (iii) Banjar Kadeem/other Gair Mumkin 400/-(Athwan) 400/- (Kalroohi) 300/-(Athwan) 300/- (Kalroohi) 26. From the above comparison, it is evident that for Kuhli Abbal Gairmumkin Abadi situated within the radius of 40 meters of National Highway and for the land situated beyond 40 meters of National Highway, value of land in village Kalroohi has been determined at the rate of Rs. 600/- and Rs. 450/-, whereas for village Athwan, it has been valued at the rate of Rs. 575/- and Rs. 450/-, for Barani Abbal, the rates are Rs. 550/- and Rs. 450/- in village Kalroohi and Rs. 560 and Rs. 450/- in village Athwan has been assessed. Similarly, Banjar Kadeem and other Gair Mumkin land has been assessed having the value at Rs. 400/- and Rs. 300/- in both the villages. Therefore, Land Acquisition Collector himself considered the value of nature and potentiality of land of both the villages on equal footings. Therefore, plea of Northern Railway that there is no evidence on record for equating nature and potentiality of land of these two villages, is not sustainable. 400/- and Rs. 300/- in both the villages. Therefore, Land Acquisition Collector himself considered the value of nature and potentiality of land of both the villages on equal footings. Therefore, plea of Northern Railway that there is no evidence on record for equating nature and potentiality of land of these two villages, is not sustainable. As there is ample evidence of similarity of nature and potentiality, the award passed in related acquisition in village Kalroohi can be taken into consideration for awarding identical rate for acquisition of land in village Athwan. 27. Though, there is also evidence of location of land at Village Adharsh Nagar Amb adjoining to village Adhwan, but there is weak evidence of similarity of nature and potentiality of that land with land of village Athwan. Therefore, award Ext. P-24 cannot be strictly relied upon for awarding the identical compensation of land in village Athwan. Perusal of the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court also indicates that this award Ext. P-24 pertaining to village Adarsh Nagar, Amb has not been taken into consideration by the Reference Court for enhancing the value of land under consideration. The Reference Court has only relied upon the award Ext. P-25, pertaining to village Kalroohi. 28. For the discussion made hereinabove, no illegality, irregularity or perversity is found committed by the Reference Court by relying upon the award Ext. P-25 for determining the value of acquired land at the rate of R. Hemant Singh's case supra and Union of India and others v. N.S. Rathnam and sons (2015) 10 SCC 681 , Rs. 1,000/- per square meter. I find no ground for interference, particularly when the said award Ext. P-25 has also been affirmed by this Court vide judgment dated 26.07.2018, passed in RFA No. 388/2016 alongwith connected matters. 29. So far as the valuation of the building/structure standing on the land under acquisition is concerned, no evidence to rebut the same has been led by the Northern Railways before the Reference Court. In cross-examination of PW-1 Anil Kumar and PW-4 Neeraj Kumar also nothing substantial has been brought on record to discredit the valuation of building/structure proved by these witnesses. In cross-examination of PW-1 Anil Kumar and PW-4 Neeraj Kumar also nothing substantial has been brought on record to discredit the valuation of building/structure proved by these witnesses. Rather it has come in their cross-examination that the scheduled rate of Public Works Department was followed for valuation and nothing has been put to these witnesses or placed on record to establish that valuation carried out by them was not inconsonance with the scheduled rate of PWD or excessive in nature. Therefore, no interference on this issue also, is warranted. 30. Therefore, land owners/claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation on the basis of value of land at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per square meters alongwith statutory benefits and also compensation for structures/houses as determined by the Reference Court. 31. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and all appeals are dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 32. Record be sent back.