Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2018 (HP)

Land Acquisition Collector v. Kishan Chand

2018-11-20

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed against the award rendered by the learned District Judge, Solan, H.P., upon, Land Ref. Pet. No.36-S/4 of 1992, whereunder, he assessed compensation, vis-a-vis, the acquired land, at the rate of Rs.48,000/- per bigha, along with statutory interest accrued thereon, besides assessed use and occupation charges, at the rate of Rs.1000/- per bigha, per annum, from the year 1969, till the date of issuance of notification, and, upon the afore quantum, of use and occupation charges, interest at the rate of 7.5 % hence stood levied, from, the date of possession, till deposit, of the afore quantum of use and occupation charges. 2. The afore impugned award stood rendered in pursuance to the hereinafter extracted directions, being meted, upon, the learned Reference Court, by this Court while making a decision, upon, RFA No. 114 of 2000, in case titled as LAC & others vs. Kishan Chand :- “(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 Nartoam Ram v. Land Acquisition collector and others (2002 (3) Shim. L. C.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) SCC 79) and Land Acquisition Officer v. Hemanagouda and others (2205) 12 SCC 443. (iii) The claimants will be at liberty to establish their claim for reimbursement of money/compensation for use of their 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) Parties are directed to appear before the learned Reference Court on 18.6.2008. The reference court shall dispose of the matter before 31.3.2009.” 3. (iv) Parties are directed to appear before the learned Reference Court on 18.6.2008. The reference court shall dispose of the matter before 31.3.2009.” 3. The learned Deputy Advocate General, has contended with much vigour before this Court (i) that the compensation amount computed, in, a sum of Rs.48,000/- per bigha, falls outside the realm, of evidence, as, exists on record, and, hence, the, computation of compensation, rather meriting interference by this Court. However, the aforesaid contention is rudderless, given the learned Reference Court, while pronouncing a common decision, upon, land reference petitions, bearing No.18-S/4 of 1992, No.8-S/4 of 1992, No.6-S/4 of 1992, No.14-S/4 of 1992, No.15-S/4 of 1992, No.9-S/4 of 1992, No.28-S/4 of 1992, No.30-S/4 of 1992, No.33-2/4 of 1992, No.34-S/4 of 1992, No.36-S/4 of 1992, No.37-S/4 of 1992, No.39-S/4 of 1992, No.40-S/4 of 1992, No.41-S/4 of 1992, No.64-S/4 of 1992, No.67-S/4 of 1992, No.31-S/4 of 1992, No.35-S/4 of 1992, No.66-S/4 of 1992 etc., amongst which land reference petitions, the respondent herein, had also, instituted land reference petition No. 36-S/1992, (ii) rather adjudging compensation borne in a sum o Rs.48,000/- per bigha, (iii) and, in an appeal carried therefrom, by certain aggrieved landowners, this Court, while pronouncing a common decision, upon, the apposite RFA No. 81 of 1993, along with other connected RFAs, rather affirming the common award rendered, by the learned Reference Court, upon, all the apposite land reference petitions, (iv) one amongst whereof, is, the reference petition constituted, before, the learned Reference Court, by the respondent herein. 4. Apart therefrom, also he proceeded to contend with much vigour before this Court, (i) that the computation of the quantum, of, use and occupation charges, as, made by the learned Reference Court, from, the period commencing, from, the year 1969, upto, the date of issuance of the statutory notification, (ii) being outside the domain, and, ambit of the order, of, remand made to the learned Reference Court. However, the aforesaid contention is also wanting in vigour, (iii) given the hereinabove extracted order of remand made by this Court, to the learned reference Court, rather making a clear echoing qua the claimants, being at liberty, to, establish their claim, for determination of use and occupation charges, for the period whereupto, rather they for possession held,, of, the subsequent therewith acquired lands, hence, stood deprived, of, benefits thereof, (iv) thereupon, when evidence in consonance, with the afore order of remand made by this Court, vis-avis, the learned Reference Court, stood also adduced, (v) hence, the computation, of, the monetary value, of, use and occupation charges, as, made by the learned Reference Court, does fall, within the domain, and, ambit of the order of remand made by this Court, vis-a-vis, the learned Reference Court. 5. Nonetheless, the learned Deputy Advocate General, has contended with much fervor, (i) that, the amount of Rs.1000/- per bigha per annum, determined as value of use and occupation charges, from, the period, commencing, from, the year 1969 to the year 1989, being grossly exorbitant, and, exaggerated. He submits that while making the afore computation, the learned Reference Court (ii) ignoring evidence, adduced by the appellants, comprised in the jamabandi, appertaining to the period contemporaneous, to, the taking of possession, vis-a-vis, subsequent therewith acquired lands, (iii) with clear pronouncements borne therein, that, given the acquired lands being uncultivated, (iv) thereupon, the meteing of credence to the deposition of one Shanti Devi qua hers sowing crops, of, tomatoes and ginger, being meritless. However, the aforesaid contention is also rudderless, (v) given assumingly, even if, the apposite lands were uncultivated, and, also if the afore deposition of PW-8 is also unmeritworthy, (vi) nonetheless, the preeminent factum of likelihood of the landowners, upon, making improvements upon the acquired land, hence, rendering it cultivable, and, also rendering it imminently crop bearing, yet being not discardable, (vii) thereupon, the prolonged period of utilization, of the acquired land, from 1969, till its acquisition, under, a statutory notification issued in the year 1989, (viii) obviously entailed making, of, the afore just quantification of damages per bigha per annum, and, nor the levying of interest thereon, is, outside the mandate of law. 6. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the impugned award is maintained and affirmed. 6. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the impugned award is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.