Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 121 (HP)

Land Acquisition Collector v. Kirna Devi

2023-03-07

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2023
JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. These appeals have been preferred by State of Himachal Pradesh against common Award dated 28.7.2016 passed by Reference Court, i.e. Additional District Judge (1) Una, District Una, H.P. in LAC Petition Nos. 15/2014, titled Kirna Devi and another Vs. The Land Acquisition Collector and another; 14/14, titled Satish Kumar Vs. The Land Acquisition Collector and another; 1/14, titled Sangeeta Devi Vs. The Land Acquisition Collector and another; 2/14, titled Rajinder Singh Vs. The Land Acquisition Collector and another; and 3/14, titled Om Parkash & others Vs. The Land Acquisition Collector and another. 2. Undisputed facts are that the land belonging to respondents/land owners, situated in village Jalgarn, District Una, has been acquired by the State for public purpose, i.e. for construction of Nangal-Mehatpur-Una-Amb-Mubarikpur road by issuing notification dated 3.10.2008 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (herein after referred to as the Act), which was lastly published in the newspaper on 6.11.2008. 3. Land Acquisition Collector after completing due process under the Act, had announced Award under Section 11 of the Act determining the market value of the acquired land on the basis of category and classification ranging from 190.95 per Centiare to Rs.14639.33 per Centiare. 4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid determination of market value of the land, land owners preferred above referred Reference Petitions, which have been decided by the Reference court vide impugned common award dated 28.7.2016, whereby uniform flat rate has been determined by the Reference Court, for calculating the compensation payable to land owners, at the rate of Rs.14639.33 per Centiare, the highest rate determined by the Land Acquisition Collector with respect to portion of land acquired under the above process. 5. In the Reference Petitions, land owners have placed reliance upon documentary evidence Ex. PW-2/A to Ex. PW-2/P, Ex. PW-4/A, Ex. PW-5/A to Ex. PW-5/C, Ex. PW-6/A, Ex. PW-6/B, Ex. PW-7/A, Ex. PW-7/B and Ex. PW-8/A, whereas State has placed reliance upon Ex. R1 to R9. 6. 5. In the Reference Petitions, land owners have placed reliance upon documentary evidence Ex. PW-2/A to Ex. PW-2/P, Ex. PW-4/A, Ex. PW-5/A to Ex. PW-5/C, Ex. PW-6/A, Ex. PW-6/B, Ex. PW-7/A, Ex. PW-7/B and Ex. PW-8/A, whereas State has placed reliance upon Ex. R1 to R9. 6. When land of different kinds and classification is acquired for one purpose irrelevant to the classification of land, he market value of entire acquired land, irrespective of its classification and category is required to be assessed and awarded at a flat and uniform rate for all categories of land, because in view of purpose of acquisition classification of land completely loses significance and entire land under acquisition has to be awarded uniform rate. In present case land has been acquired for construction of road and for utilization of land for the said purpose category and classification of agricultural land is completely irrelevant. 7. It is well settled that at the time of determining market value of land for acquisition, the purpose for which the land is acquired, is relevant, and not nature and classification of land and where nature and classification of the land has no relevance for purpose of acquisition, market value of the land is to be determined as a single unit irrespective of nature and classification of the land. In such a case, uniform rate to all kinds of land under acquisition as a single unit irrespective of their nature and classification is to be awarded. (See Dadu Ram Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and others (2016) 2 ILR 636 (HP); H.P. Housing Board Vs. Ram Lal and others, 2003 (3) Shim.L.C. 64 ; Union of India Vs. Harinder Pal Singh and others 2005 (12) SCC 564; Executive Engineer and another Vs. Dila Ram, Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 1007; LAC and another Vs. Bhoop Ram and others, 1997 (2) SLC 229; Smt. Gulabi and etc. Vs. State of H.P. ( AIR 1998 HP 9 ) and G.M. Northern Railway Vs. Gulzar Singh and others (Latest HLJ 2014 (HP) 775). 8. Further, it is also settled that when the purpose of acquisition is common and no developmental activity is required to be carried out, compensation is to be awarded at uniform rate. (See Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by LRs. Vs. State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789 ; Himat Singh and others Vs. 8. Further, it is also settled that when the purpose of acquisition is common and no developmental activity is required to be carried out, compensation is to be awarded at uniform rate. (See Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by LRs. Vs. State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789 ; Himat Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, (2013) 16 SCC 392 and Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Dead) by Legal Representatives and others Vs. State of Karnataka and Another, (2015) 10 SCC 469 ). 9. As provided under Section 25 of the Act, Court cannot award compensation lesser than that awarded by Land Acquisition Collector (See Shub Ram & others Vs. State of Haryana and another 2010 (1) SCC 444 ). Therefore, where uniform rate of compensation is to be awarded, it cannot be less than highest rate determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. 10. In present case Land Acquisition Collector has determined highest value of land at the rate of Rs.14639.33 per Centiare. In view of provisions of Section 25 of the Act, Reference Court cannot determine the value of land at a rate lower than the rate determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. As discussed supra, in present case uniform rate of the acquired land is to be determined for calculating the compensation payable to the land owners and the value of land has been determined by the Reference Court at a rate of 14,639.33 per centiare which was the rate determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. 11. For provisions of the Act read with above referred pronouncements of the Court, value of land cannot be determined lesser than Rs.14639.33 per centiare, which is the value of land determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. 12. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances and ratio of pronouncements referred supra, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or perversity in the value of land determined by the Reference Court As such, I find no merit in the appeals and, accordingly, the appeals are dismissed alongwith pending applications.