Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 438 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Anant Ram

2019-04-22

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J. 1. Aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, in Reference Case No. 23 S/4 of 2005, whereby he enhanced compensation amount from Rs.2100/- per bigha, as awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, to Rs.52,000/- per bigha, the State has filed the instant appeal. 2. The facts are not in dispute. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, the Act) for construction of KaithlighatBasha road was issued on 8.5.2000 and published in the local newspaper on 31.5.2000. This was followed by the formalities as contemplated under the Act and ultimately led to passing of the award No.15/2002 by the Land Acquisition Collector on 31.8.2002, details whereof are as under: Sr. No. Quantity of land Amount 1 Total compensation for land 4 bigha 16 biswa Rs.10,080/- 2 30% solatium Rs.3,024/- 3 Additional amount of compensation @ 12% P.A. w.e.f. (10.5.2002 to 31.8.2002) Rs.2,796/- 4 Interest under Section 34 @ 9% w.e.f. 10.5.2000 to 9.5.2001 Rs.907/- 5 @ 15% interest per annum w.e.f. 10.5.2001 to 31.8.2002 Rs.1,984/- Total Rs.18,792/- 3. Dissatisfied by the inadequacy of the compensation so awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, the respondents filed reference petition under Section 18 of the Act before the learned Additional District Judge, who, as observed above, awarded an amount of Rs.52,000/- per bigha. 4. It is vehemently argued Mr. Svaneel Jaswal, learned Deputy Advocate General, that the learned reference court erred in relying upon the sale deed, Ext.PW1/K, which pertains to land at Kathlee, whereas the acquired land was situated in Village Surho, therefore, could not have been made basis for determination of the compensation. On the other hand, Mr. Vishal Panwar, Advocate, for the claimants/respondents would argue that the impugned award being in consonance with law warrants no interference. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 6. Ext. PW1/K is a copy of sale deed dated 14.7.2000, vide which 6 bighas of land in village Kathlee was sold for Rs.3,15,000/-. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 6. Ext. PW1/K is a copy of sale deed dated 14.7.2000, vide which 6 bighas of land in village Kathlee was sold for Rs.3,15,000/-. This sale deed pertains to a big chunk of land i.e. 6 bighas and can be said to be the best evidence regarding value of the land and it has come on record that there is no sale exemplar in the cross proximity to the notification under Section 4 of the Act of the said village i.e. Surho that too of such a big area. 7. Therefore, in my considered view, the sale exemplar could very well be used as an evidence, particularly when it has come on record that the Village Kathlee was contiguous to Village Surho and for this purpose, reliance can conveniently be placed on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and another, (2008) 14 SCC 745 , wherein it was observed as under: "8. The fact that Santhal village adjoins Ijapura is not disputed. The fact that Ex.15 related to the acquisition of lands in the neighbouring Santhal village, for the benefit of the appellant ONGC is also not disputed. The Reference Court and the High Court have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that having regard to the proximity and similarity between the lands at Santhal covered by Ex. 15 and the acquired lands in Ijapura, the market value determined in regard to the Santhal lands afforded a reasonable basis for determining the market value of the acquired lands. 9. We also find from the evidence of one of the claimants - Laljibhai examined as CW1, that the boundaries of Santhal, Kasalpura and Modipur villages are adjacent to the acquired lands; and that the lands of one Ramanbhai Keshavlal of Santhal Village acquired on 6.1.1987 (subject matter of Ex.15) and the acquired lands were in neighbouring areas divided only by three or four agricultural fields. We also find that the Ex. We also find that the Ex. 15 was also the basis for determining the market value of lands which were the subject matter of another acquisition for ONGC in Santhal and other villages under notification dated 31.7.1986; and that this Court affirmed the award of compensation at the rate of Rs.10 per sq. m. in regard to such acquisition relying on Ex. 15 (vide in ONGC Ltd. v. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel & Ors., 2005 (6) SCC 454 ). We are therefore of the view that in the absence of any evidence relating to sale transactions or acquisitions relating to the village of Ijapura itself, and having regard to the evidence relating to proximity of Santhal lands, Ex.15 offered a reasonable basis for determining the market value of the acquired lands in Ijapura. In view of Ex.15 relating to neighbouring Santhal, Ex.16 relating to Chalsana loses relevance." 8. Apart from above, it also needs to be noticed that earlier to this, there was an award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan on 22.9.1999 pertaining to the land situated in Village Shungal, which was also adjoining to the Village Surho, wherein value of the land acquired was assessed at Rs.40,000/- per bigha. The notification under Section 4 of the Act in the said case was issued on 24.11.1993 and if the value of the land in the year 1993 was Rs.40,000/- per bigha, then by no stretch of imagination can it be held that value of similar land that too after nearly about 6 years would not be at least Rs.52,000/- per bigha as assessed by the learned Additional District Judge in the instant case. 9. Having said so, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application(s) if any, also stands disposed of.