Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 939 (HP)

Paras Ram v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-05-21

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2018
JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J —Both the parties are aggrieved by the award passed by the learned District Judge in a Reference Petition preferred by the claimants under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ''Act'') . The parties referred to as the claimants and the respondents, respectively. 2. Brief facts of the case are that 1 bigha 18 biswas of land of the petitioners alongwith other land owners situated in Village Kiyari came to be acquired for the public purpose i.e. construction of Kunihar-Bainj-Ki-Hatti-Brahmpukhar-Shelly road. The codal formalities of issuing notifications etc. was completed and thereafter the Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land by categorizing it as cultivated and uncultivated and awarded a sum of Rs.26, 117/- per bigha for cultivated land and Rs.3, 822/- per bigha uncultivated land alongwith all other statutory benefits as emanating from the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation, the claimants have sought enhancement of the compensation by invoking the provisions of Section 18 of the Act. The learned Reference Court allowed the petition and assessed the market value of the land at Rs.1, 85, 000/- per bigha and further awarded damages/occupation charges at the rate of Rs.3, 000/- per bigha per year starting from July, 1989 till the date of the present notification alongwith 8% interest per annum. 4. The claimants have assailed the award mainly on the ground that as against the increase of 10% per year on the awarded amount of Rs.84, 000/- w.e.f. October, 1993 to June, 2006, there ought to be an increase of 15% per year. Whereas, the State has assailed the award primarily on the ground that 10% increase in the land as assessed by the Reference Court since July, 1993 is most unreasonable and are whimsical. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case carefully. 5. At the outset, it may be observed that there is practically no evidence on record to prove that the possession of the land was in fact taken in the year 1989, whereas on the other hand there is overwhelming evidence to indicate that the land was in fact acquired in the year 1993. 5. At the outset, it may be observed that there is practically no evidence on record to prove that the possession of the land was in fact taken in the year 1989, whereas on the other hand there is overwhelming evidence to indicate that the land was in fact acquired in the year 1993. This position is candidly admitted even by the claimants, therefore, the claimants at best could be held entitled to the damages/occupation charges at the rate of Rs.3, 000/- per bigha per year alongwith interest from July, 1989 till the date of notification i.e. 2004. 6. As regards 8% interest, even though strong exception is taken by learned Additional Advocate General to contend that this would amount to dual benefit as on the one hand 10% of increase on Rs.84, 000/- from October, 1993 to June, 2006 i.e. for the period of 12 years has been given to the claimants per year and on the other hand interest at the rate of 8% interest per annum is also being paid to them. But I do not find any merit in such contention. Admittedly, the claimants have only been ordered to be paid a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per year towards the damages/occupation charges alongwith 8% interest. 7. As regards 10% increase on Rs.84, 000/-, as aforesaid, this figure has been taken only to work out the market value of the land on the date of the notification and this amount has not been paid to the claimants. Therefore, I really fail to understand how the State could claim that the claimants to have been benefited twice, rather I find that granting of 8% interest is very much on the lower side and even otherwise the Reference Court itself has given increase of 10% while working out the market value of the acquired land. Therefore, in such circumstances, the Reference Court could not have applied two different yardsticks one for working out the use and occupation charges and the other to work out the market value of the land. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, both the appeals are partly allowed. Therefore, in such circumstances, the Reference Court could not have applied two different yardsticks one for working out the use and occupation charges and the other to work out the market value of the land. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, both the appeals are partly allowed. Insofar as the appeal i.e. RFA No. 18 of 2010 filed by the State is concerned, the same is allowed to the extent that instead of July, 1989 it shall be liable to pay to the claimants the use and occupation charges w.e.f. October, 1993 to June, 2006. However, the damages/occupation charges shall be paid at the rate of Rs.3000/- per bigha alongwith 10% interest as against 8% interest awarded by the Reference Court from October, 1993 till its payment. Consequently, the appeal filed by the claimants i.e. RFA No. 404 of 2009 is also partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. Both the appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.