Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 849 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Durga Nand

2019-07-03

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. Since both the above captioned appeals as well as Cross-Objections, having been filed by the respective parties, are directed against the award dated 27.06.2015 passed by learned District Judge (Forest), Shimla, the same are being taken up together for adjudication with the consent of learned counsel representing the parties. 2. By way of two appeals bearing RFA Nos. 112 and 113 of 2016, filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as well as Cross- Objections, bearing C.O. Nos. 43 and 25 of 2017 respectively, under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter after referred to as ‘CPC’) challenge has been laid to award dated 27.06.2015 passed by learned District Judge (Forest), Shimla in various Land Reference Petitions as described in the award, including Land Reference Petition Nos. 42-S/4 of 2013/12 and 3-S/4 of 2014/12, which are under challenge in these appeals. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 4. It is not in dispute that suit land belonging to claimants-respondents came to be acquired for public purpose, namely: construction of "Thana-Turan Road" and acquisition proceedings commenced with the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act on 01.08.2005. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘LAC’) passed award No. 45/08 on 29.09.2008 and awarded compensation of the acquired land as per the classification of the land mentioned in the award. 5. Claimants, who are respondents in both the above mentioned appeals, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the amount awarded by LAC, preferred Reference Petition Nos. 42-S/4 of 2013/12 and 3-S/4 of 2014/12 under Section 18 of the Act, seeking therein enhancement of compensation. Learned District Judge (Forest), Shimla, after framing issue and recording evidence of both the parties as well as after hearing the parties, vide impugned award dated 27.06.2015, re-determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 1627.44/- per square meter. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award dated 27.06.2015, passed by learned District Judge (Forest), Shimla in Reference Petition Nos. 42-S/4 of 2013/12 and 3-S/4 of 2014/12, having been filed under Section 18 of the Act, the appellants-State, in both the aforesaid appeals, has approached this Court for setting aside the impugned award. 7. 1627.44/- per square meter. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award dated 27.06.2015, passed by learned District Judge (Forest), Shimla in Reference Petition Nos. 42-S/4 of 2013/12 and 3-S/4 of 2014/12, having been filed under Section 18 of the Act, the appellants-State, in both the aforesaid appeals, has approached this Court for setting aside the impugned award. 7. It is not in dispute before this Court that similar situate claimants, whose land also came to be acquired for construction of "Thana-Turan Road" in the acquisition proceedings commenced with the publication of Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 01.08.2005, had filed land reference petitions before the learned District Judge (Forest), Shimla, praying therein to enhance the compensation awarded by LAC, which were decided and the compensation enhanced. The awards so passed were under challenge in this Court in several other appeals. One of such appeal, RFA No. 368 of 2014, titled as The Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Limited and Another vs. Narayan Singh and Others (for short "Narayan Singh's case") came to be decided alongwith its connected matters by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 12.10.2018. This judgment, in turn, has been followed in RFA No. 222/2015, titled as Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Limited and Another vs. Chanan Singh and Others alongwith analogous matters, decided on 12.10.2018. It is seen that this Court, on re-appraisal of the given facts and circumstances as well as the evidence available on record, has re-determined the market value of the acquired land as Rs. 2700/- per centiare and enhanced the compensation alongwith consequential statutory benefits accordingly. 8. Mr. Sanjeev Sood, learned Additional Advocate General, representing the appellants- State, while fairly acknowledging the factum with regard to passing of judgment dated 12.10.2018 in Narayan Singh's case (supra), conceded that claimants in the cases at hand are also entitled to enhanced market value of acquired land at the rate of Rs. 2700/- per centiare alongwith all consequential statutory benefits as per the said judgment. 9. At this stage, it may be noticed that, Claimants-Cross Objectors have filed Cross- Objections bearing C.O. Nos. 43 and 25 of 2017 in RFA Nos. 112 and 113 of 2016 respectively under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC praying therein for enhancement of compensation of award amount passed by learned District Judge (Forest) qua the acquired land. 10. 9. At this stage, it may be noticed that, Claimants-Cross Objectors have filed Cross- Objections bearing C.O. Nos. 43 and 25 of 2017 in RFA Nos. 112 and 113 of 2016 respectively under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC praying therein for enhancement of compensation of award amount passed by learned District Judge (Forest) qua the acquired land. 10. Since this Court has held the claimants entitled for enhanced market value of acquired land at the rate of Rs. 2700/- per centiare alongwith consequential statutory benefits, instead of Rs. 1627.44, in view of judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Narayan Singh's case (supra), Mr. Sanjeev Sood, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly conceded that cross-objectors-claimants (in C.O. Nos. 43 and 25 of 2017 in RFA Nos. 112 and 113 of 2016 respectively) are also entitled to similar enhancement of compensation i.e. Rs. 2700/- per centiare alongwith consequential statutory benefits qua their acquired land as per their share. 11. Mr. B.S. Chauhan, learned Senior Counsel representing claimants-cross objectors, also acceded to the market value of the land determined by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Narayan Singh's case (supra), and, accordingly, it is ordered that directions contained in Narayan Singh's case supra, shall mutatis mutandis apply to the case of claimants-cross objectors also. 12. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as fair stand adopted by Mr. Sanjeev Sood, learned Additional Advocate General representing the appellants-State, both the appeals bearing RFA Nos. 112 and 113 of 2016 are dismissed. The Cross-Objections bearing C.O. Nos. 43 and 25 of 2017 in RFA Nos. 112 and 113 of 2016 respectively are allowed and it is ordered that directions contained in RFA No. 368 of 2014, titled, Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Limited and Another vs. Narayan Singh and Others case supra shall mutatis mutandis apply in RFA Nos. 112 and 113 of 2016 alongwith Cross-Objection Nos. 43 and 25 of 2017 respectively. 13. Appellant-State is directed to deposit the entire award amount in the Registry of this Court within a period of eight weeks from today, if not already deposited. 14. Interim order, if any, is vacated. All the miscellaneous applications are disposed of.