Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2035 (HP)

Nathpa Jhakri Project Corporation v. Satya Devi

2018-11-20

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. 29 of 1992/95/97/2007, whereunder, the learned Reference Court, held the landowners to stand entitled, to, enhancement of compensation, borne in a sum of Rs.1,92,000/-, (a) compensation amount whereof hence stood assessed, visa-vis, the building/house, of the landowners, as, existing on the acquired land, and, all statutory benefits accruable thereon also stood assessed thereon. 2. The impugned verdict, is, rendered in pursuance to a decision recorded by this Court, upon, RFA No. 129 of 2001, appeal whereof stood instituted, before this Court, by the respondents herein, (i) given theirs being aggrieved by the learned Reference Court rather not in accordance with law hence assessing compensation. Upon RFA No. 129 of 2001, this Court had proceeded to render an order of remand, vis-a-vis, the learned Reference Court, and, the apt order of remand made by this Court, vis-a-vis, the learned Reference Court, is, extracted hereinafter:- "I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. On perusing the judgment of the learned Reference Court, I find that there are serious infirmities in the award. The learned Court has considered matters and relied upon the reference made by the reference Court in the award which had already been set aside in appeal before this Court and the matter remanded. There is no clarity in reasoning as to why the compensation claimed by the claimants for trees and building should be disallowed despite their being evidence on record. The learned Court does not consider the contentions raised or the evidence produced in support thereof. This appeal is accordingly remanded to the District Judge, Rampur, who will decide the matter afresh considering the evidence, both oral and documentary on the record and will determine afresh whether the claimants are entitled to the market value of the land and trees existing on the acquired land. Needless to observe, such compensation will be determined in accordance with the established principles of law. This appeal is accordingly allowed. Parties will appear before the learned District Judge on 3.12.2007. This District Judge will given opportunity to the parties to lead such other relevant evidence as they may desire in support of their respective contention(s)." 3. Needless to observe, such compensation will be determined in accordance with the established principles of law. This appeal is accordingly allowed. Parties will appear before the learned District Judge on 3.12.2007. This District Judge will given opportunity to the parties to lead such other relevant evidence as they may desire in support of their respective contention(s)." 3. A reading of the afore order of remand, makes clear upsurging qua the learned Reference Court rather being directed to determine (i) whether the petitioners/claimant are entitled qua market value of the land, and, trees existing on the acquired land; (ii) and the learned Reference Court being directed to afford opportunity(ies) to the contesting litigants, to lead, the, requisite evidence in support of their respective contentions. In sequel, in, the learned Reference Court, hence, permitting the contesting litigants to adduce evidence, (iii) and, conspicuously its also permitting the claimants, vis-a-vis, their espousal for determination, of compensation, vis-a-vis, the trees and building existing on the acquired land, (iv) to hence, adduce evidence thereon, and, its also permitting the appellants herein to adduce rebuttal evidence thereto, (v) rather has obviously not falling outside, the, ambit of the order of remand, pronounced by this Court, while, rendering a verdict, upon, RFA No. 129 of 2001, RFA whereof, stood previously instituted before this Court, by, the respondents herein. 4. The learned Reference Court, upon, receiving the apt land reference petition, upon, its remand, vis-a-vis, it, had proceeded to aptly conclude qua the inefficacy, of, the apt valuation, borne in Ex.PW7/A, (i) whereunder, the valuation of the building existing, on, the acquired land, hence stood assessed in a sum of Rs.2,91,800/-, (ii) conspicuously when the apt valuation report was made, vis-a-vis, a purportedly new construction, (iii) factum whereof was tenably concluded to be ridden with a vice of falsity, given, rather PW-10 rendering a deposition qua the disputed house being Katcha, and, it being constructed in the year 1984. The learned Reference Court had also further concluded (iv) that the valuation report borne in Ex. PW7/A, and, site plan borne in Ex.PW7/B also not leveraging the claimants'' contention, qua three shops, existing on the acquired land, and, theirs being owned by the landowners. Consequently, the learned Reference Court aptly declined the espoused relief, qua, computation of compensation, borne in a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, vis-a-vis, each shop. 5. PW7/A, and, site plan borne in Ex.PW7/B also not leveraging the claimants'' contention, qua three shops, existing on the acquired land, and, theirs being owned by the landowners. Consequently, the learned Reference Court aptly declined the espoused relief, qua, computation of compensation, borne in a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, vis-a-vis, each shop. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, on anvil of the afore claims, for the afore ascribed reasons, hence, standing rejected by the learned Reference Court, (i) has contended that, thereupon, there was no occasion for the learned reference Court hence to ascribe any tenacity, to the deposition of PW-11, who, in his affidavit tendered into evidence, during, the course of his examination-in-chief, rendered a communication qua his taking two shops from one Satya Devi, on a monthly rent of Rs.500/- per month each, and, his thereat, uptill 1993 rather carrying the work of steel fabrication. He has also submitted that there was also no tenable reason for the learned Reference Court, to, ascribe any tenacity, visa-vis, the deposition of Lal Sukh, PW-12, who rendered a testification qua his staying, in, the upper storey of the house, as a tenant, and, his liquidating rent borne in a sum of Rs.800/- per month, to one of the claimant(s), one Kamla Devi. However, the afore submission made before this Court is rudderless, given the appellants herein rather not adducing any evidence, for, adequately repulsing the effect, of, the afore testifications rendered by PW-11 and PW-12. The absence of adduction by the appellants herein, of, hence potent evidence, for, thereupon, rather eroding the afore rendered testifications, made by PW-11, and, by PW-12, hence entails a formidable inference, qua, assessment of compensation borne in a sum of Rs.1,92,000/- in respect of the market value, of, their building/house, existing on the acquired land, hence, not suffering from any infirmity. Conspicuously, when the Land Acquisition Collector concerned, had uncontestedly, hence, assessed a sum of Rs.53,105/-, qua the afore house, sum whereof be deducted from Rs.1,92,000/-, and, obviously all statutory benefits, are leviable thereon. 6. Consequently, in the instant appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the afore extent only. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.