Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 812 (HP)

Northern Railways v. Ram Kishan Pabla

2018-05-04

SANJAY KAROL

body2018
JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, A.C.J —Cmp No.1 of 2012 in RFA No.155 of 2011 For the reasons set out in the application, the same is allowed and name of respondent No.4, Sh.Biru alias Balbir Singh, is directed to be deleted from the array of memo of parties. Registry is directed to carryout necessary corrections in the Memo of parties. Application stands disposed of. CMP(M) Nos.3 & 4 of 2012 in RFA No.155 of 2011 For the reasons set out in the applications, after condoning delay in filing the application for bringing on record the LRs of deceased respondent No.2, Balwant Singh, his name is directed to be substituted with that of his LRs as mentioned in the application. Registry is directed to carryout necessary corrections in the Memo of parties. Applications stand disposed of. CMP No.4 of 2012 in RFA No.161 of 2011 For the reasons set out in the application, the same is allowed and name of respondent No.4, Sh.Biru alias Balbir Singh, is directed to be deleted from the array of memo of parties. Registry is directed to carryout necessary corrections in the Memo of parties. Application stands disposed of. CMP(M) Nos.8 & 9 of 2012 in RFA No.161 of 2011 For the reasons set out in the applications, after condoning delay in filing the application for bringing on record the LRs of deceased respondent No.2, 3, 23 & 24 their names are directed to be substituted with that of their LRs as mentioned in the application(s) . Registry is directed to carryout necessary corrections in the Memo of parties. Applications stand disposed of. CMP(M) Nos.1905 & 1906 of 2012 in RFA No.161 of 2011 For the reasons set out in the applications, after condoning delay in filing the application for bringing on record the LRs of deceased respondent No.4, Biru alias Balbir Singh, his name is directed to be substituted with that of his LRs as mentioned in the application. Registry is directed to carryout necessary corrections in the Memo of parties. Applications stand disposed of. Registry is directed to carryout necessary corrections in the Memo of parties. Applications stand disposed of. RFA Nos.166 of 2011, 154 to 165, 167 to 170 of 2011 In all these appeals, so filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) , the beneficiary(ies) of the acquisition proceedings have assailed the common award dated 19.10.2010, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Una, District Una, H.P., in Land Reference Petition No.75 of 2008, titled as Sh.Ram Kishan Pabla vs. The Land Acquisition Collector, Railways, Una, H.P. & others, alongwith other reference petitions. 2. In terms of the impugned award, the Reference Court by enhancing the amount of compensation has uniformly awarded Rs.1, 00, 000/- per kanal regardless of classification and category of the land to all the claimants. 3. The basis for enhancement is copy of the Award dated 01.12.1998 (Ex.P-1) , passed by District Judge, Una, in Land Reference Case No.3/1991, titled as Siri Ram etc. vs. L.A.C. (Railway) and others, alongwith other reference cases, wherein amount stands awarded @ Rs.1, 44, 000/- per kanal. 4. In the instant cases, acquisition proceedings commenced with the publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act on 31.10.2000. The Collector Land Acquisition passed his award No.8, dated 19.09.2001, awarding different rates ranging from Rs.1211-37 paisa to Rs.18, 030-76 paisa per kanal, depending upon the classification and category of the land. 5. Before this Court, it is not in dispute that entire acquired land was fully utilized for public purpose, namely, construction of Una-Talwara Broad-gauge Railway line. 6. The Reference Court has discarded the evidence led by the claimants, in the shape of sale deeds (Ex.PW.1/A, dated 18.09.2000, Ex.PW.1/B, dated 09.11.1990 & Ex.PW.1/C, dated 03.04.2007) in support of their claim for award of compensation @ Rs.10, 00, 000/- per kanal. Equally sale deeds (Ex.R-1, dated 09.12.1998, Ex.R-2, dated 22.03.1990 & Ex.R3, dated 31.05.1999) were produced by the beneficiary stand discarded. 7. What weighed with the Reference Court was the Award (Ex.P-1) , dated 01.12.1998, passed by learned District Judge, Una, wherein higher compensation stood paid. Equally sale deeds (Ex.R-1, dated 09.12.1998, Ex.R-2, dated 22.03.1990 & Ex.R3, dated 31.05.1999) were produced by the beneficiary stand discarded. 7. What weighed with the Reference Court was the Award (Ex.P-1) , dated 01.12.1998, passed by learned District Judge, Una, wherein higher compensation stood paid. Considering the time gap of two years and the fact that claimants'' land was not identical, but almost similarly situated, with that of the claimants, in the Reference Award, this Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court rightly relied upon the award and carried out deduction to the extent of Rs.44, 000/-. Award (Ex.P-1) pertains to village Ajnoli. Whereas, the instant land falls within village Dangoli, an adjoining village. 8. Now it is a settled principle of law that if the entire land is put for a public use and no area is left out for carrying out any developmental activity, then the claimants are entitled for compensation for the entire acquired land, at uniform rates, regardless of its categorization. 9. Relying upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Haridwar Development Authority vs. Raghubir Singh & others , (2010) 11 SCC 581 , Collector Land Acquisition, uniformly determined the market value of the acquired land. It is not in dispute that the entire acquired land stands fully utilized for the public purpose. As such, ratio of law laid down in Haridwar Development Authority , stands correctly applied to the attending facts. 10. In Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh and others , (2005) 12 SCC 564, while determining the compensation for acquisition of land pertaining to five different villages, the Apex Court uniformly awarded a sum of Rs. 40, 000/- per acre, irrespective of the classification and the category of land. 11. Further, in Nelson Fernades vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer , (2007) 9 SCC 447 while dealing with the case where the land was acquired for laying a Railway line, the Court held that no deduction by way of development charges was permissible as there was no question of any development thereof. 12. Similar view stands taken by this Court in Gulabi and etc. Vs. State of H.P. , (1998) AIR(HP) 9 and later on in H.P. Housing Board vs. Ram Lal & Ors. 12. Similar view stands taken by this Court in Gulabi and etc. Vs. State of H.P. , (1998) AIR(HP) 9 and later on in H.P. Housing Board vs. Ram Lal & Ors. , (2003) 3 ShimLC 64 , which judgment has attained finality as SLP (Civil) No. 15674- 15675 of 2004 titled as Himachal Pradesh Housing Board vs. Ram Lal (D) by LRs & Others, filed by the H.P. Housing Board came to be dismissed by the Apex Court on 16.8.2004. 13. This judgment was subsequently referred to and relied upon by this Court in Executive Engineer & Anr. vs. Dilla Ram, 2008 LatestHLJ 1007 and relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Harinder Pal Singh , wherein the market value of the land under acquisition, situated in five different villages was assessed uniformly, irrespective of its nature and quality, also awarded compensation on uniform rates. 14. It is a matter of fact that the entire land was put to public purpose. Broad-gauge railway line constructed thereupon. It was used for only one purpose and as such there cannot be any error in uniform determination of the market value of the acquired land. 15. Under these circumstances, one finds that the Reference Court to have correctly applied the principles in enhancing the amount of compensation and uniformly awarding the same to all the claimants regardless of classification and category of land. 16. The evidence led by the claimants cannot be said to be establishing the correct market value, for the exemplar sale deeds were not only of small parcel of land, but pertain to the period subsequent to passing of the award and/or are of small parcels of land with no evidence of similarity. 17. Hence, in the given facts and circumstances, no interference is warranted. It cannot be said that the findings returned by the Reference Court are perverse, illegal or erroneous. As such, present appeals as also the crossobjections stand dismissed, so also pending application(s) , if any.