Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1937 (HP)

Land Acquisition Collector, Hppcl v. Satish Kumar

2019-12-17

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - These appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment, since the question involved therein is the same. 2. In these appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the beneficiary(ies) have assailed the awards passed by the learned Reference Court. 3. Certain facts are not in dispute. For public purpose, namely, construction of Renukaji Dam and its submergence area in village, namely Deed Baggar, Sub Tehsil Dadahu, District Sirmaur, H.P., the State initiated acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Act. Notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Act for the aforesaid village was issued on 18.11.2008 and published in the Rajpatra on 19.11.2008 in RFA Nos. 130, 132, 135 and 136. The Collector Land Acquisition passed Award No.653 dated 6.8.2012 qua this village. Notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Act for the aforesaid village was issued on 24.7.2009 and published in the Rajpatra on 11.8.2009 in RFA Nos. 137, 138, 139, 140, 141 and 382 of 2019. The Collector Land Acquisition passed Award No. 654 dated 6.8.2012 qua this village. Though the respondents/claimants demanded market value of the acquired land @ Rs.50 lacs per bigha approximately, however, the Collector Land Acquisition, determined the same classificationwise. 4. Aggrieved thereof, Reference Petitions came to be filed by different claimants, which were adjudicated, in terms of the impugned awards. Rejecting the evidence led by the parties, i.e. exemplar sale deeds etc., relying upon the discussion made by the Collector in his award, the Reference Court enhanced the market value of the land falling in the various categories of the land i.e. Abad Awal/Abad Doam, Banjar Jadeed, Banjar Kadeem, Nakbil, Gair Mumkin and Ghasni. The highest value of the land has been assessed Rs.7,00,000/- per bigha by the Collector, therefore, the same rate was payable with respect to the entire land under other classified categories. 5. The issue, which this Court is called upon to determine is as to whether such re-determination of the market value is in consonance with the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by LRs vs. State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789 , or not? 6. 5. The issue, which this Court is called upon to determine is as to whether such re-determination of the market value is in consonance with the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by LRs vs. State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789 , or not? 6. The law for award of compensation at uniform rates, when the purpose of acquisition is common and no developmental activity is required to be carried out is no longer res integra and stands settled by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Viluben Jhalejar (supra); Himmat Singh and others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another, (2013) 16 SCC 392 (para 34); Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Dead ) By Legal Representatives and others Versus State of Karnataka and another, (2015) 10 SCC 469 (paras 80 and 81); as also this Court in RFA No. 953 of 2012, titled as Land Acquisition Collector and another Versus Jatinder Singh, decided on 01.06.2016 and other connected matters. 7. It is a settled principle of law that if the land is fully utilized for public purpose, which in the instant case is construction of Renukaji Dam and its submergence area and that no further developmental activities were required to be carried out, the claimants would be entitled to the compensation on uniform basis, irrespective of its classification and category. This is also the position reiterated in Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan''s case (supra). 8. The record reveals that rate for the best classification of land in the village in question was Rs.7 lacs. Under these circumstances, the impugned award, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., is affirmed and the claimants are held entitled to compensation @ Rs.7,00,000/- per bigha, irrespective of its classification and category. Insofar as appeals filed by the beneficiary(ies) are concerned, the same are dismissed. 9. All the appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. 10. The General Manager, Renukaji, HPPCL, Dadahu, District Sirmaur is directed to deposit the entire awarded amount, if already not deposited, within a period of eight weeks from today.