Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 240 (HP)

State Of Himachal Pradesh v. Brij Pal Singh

2018-03-01

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J —The instant Regular First Appeal has been preferred by the appellants herein against the award rendered on 30.11.2011 by the learned Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that as per the petitioner, notification under Section 4, was, issued by the respondents on 18.06.1999, for acquiring land, for construction of Shahnehar project situated in Mohal and Mauja Rey, Thesil Fathepur, District Kangra, H.P. An award thereon was recorded by the LAC, on 27.08.2009. The aggrieved land owners preferred an appeal, therefrom, before the learned Reference Court, alleging therein, that the possession of the land was taken about 10 years back and the petitioners are entitled to interest since 1999. 3. The award of the Land Acquisition Collector was subjected to impeachment by way of the land holders/land owners, preferring a reference petition under Section 18, of the Act, before the learned Additional District Judge, FTC, Kangra at Dharmshala. In the impugned award, the learned Addl. District Judge, on a consideration of the material as laid before him had enhanced compensation qua the land subjected to acquisition. The learned Addl. District Judge, in his impugned award has come to enhance the market value of the acquired land to Rs.7.50/- lakhs per hectare, irrespective, of the classification of lands, brought to acquisition. 4. The appellants herein/respondents before the learned Court below, stand aggrieved, by the Award rendered by the learned Addl. District Judge, FTC, Kangra at Dharamshala and consequently by way of the present appeal laid before this Court has challenged the impugned award. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has been heard at length. 6. The learned Addl. District Judge, FTC, Kangra at Dharmshala while pronouncing the award in Land Reference Petition No.64-J/05/04, wherefrom, the instant appeal, has arisen, had as displayed by a incisive perusal, of, the relevant rendition also as evincible from the evidence as exists hereat, meted reverence, to all the relevant factors, enjoined to be borne in mind, whereupon he allowed the reference petition preferred therebefore, by the aggrieved landowners, wherein they assailed the sufficiency of the compensation amount as assessed qua his land(s) by the Land Acquisition Collector. Moreover, in the learned Addl. Moreover, in the learned Addl. District Judge meteing deference, to, the relevant evidentiary material, while assessing compensation qua the lands of the aggrieved land owners, has hence not wandered astray, from, the trite principles of law. 7. The reliance as placed by the learned Reference Court upon the relevant material, in display, of the lands of the landowners, as brought to acquisition, holding, the monetary value as enumerated therein, does not suffer, from any fallacy, arising from, his infracting the relevant parameters held in judicial pronouncements qua the relevant material, as stood relied upon, holding vis--vis the lands brought to acquisition (a) proximity from time angle and (b) proximity from location angle vis--vis the land(s) brought to acquisition. Consequently, the reliance as stood placed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Kangra at Dharmshala, on, the relevant material pronouncing, upon the market value borne by the acquired land(s) , does not suffer, from any inherent fallacy. 8. The learned Addl. District Judge, FTC, Kangra at Dharmshala had interfered with the award rendered by the learned Land Acquisition Collector, wherein, he had assessed varying rates of compensation qua contradistinct categories of land. Contrarily, the learned Addl. District Judge hence assessing uniform rate(s) of compensation amount qua diverse categories of land. The learned Addl. District Judge in assessing uniform rate(s) of compensation qua diverse categories of land AND his proceeding, to set-aside the award of the Land Acquisition Collector concerned, who rather has assessed diverse rates of compensation, for contradistinct categories of land, hence has anvilled his relevant, assessment(s) , upon a verdict of this Court rendered in a case titled as Gulabi Vs. State of H.P. , (1998) AIR(HP) 9, wherein, it is mandated qua uniform rate(s) of compensation being assessable qua all lands brought, to acquisition, irrespective of their varying classifications, (i) conspicuously, when the purpose(s) for bringing the lands brought to acquisition is common to each category(s) of land. In aftermath, when the purpose for acquiring the lands, of the land owner(s) , is common, to varying categories of lands, hence contradistinctivity(s) in their respective classification(s) also contradistinctivity(s) in their monetary value(s) hence pales into insignificance. In sequel, the assessment, of, uniform rate(s) of compensation, for all categories of lands is both just and expedient. Consequently, the award of the learned Addl. In sequel, the assessment, of, uniform rate(s) of compensation, for all categories of lands is both just and expedient. Consequently, the award of the learned Addl. District Judge, FTC, Kangra at Dharmshala in Land Reference No. 64-J/05/04, hence assessing uniform rate(s) of compensation qua diverse categories of land, does not, suffer from any infirmity. The aforesaid view is also supported by the judgment of this Court, rendered in RFA No. 688 of 2012, titled The State of H.P. & another vs. Rattan Chand. 9. In sequel, the instant appeal is dismissed and the award impugned herebefore is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of.