Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 141 (HP)

Naradhu v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2024-02-29

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2024
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this appeal, the appellant/landlord has challenged the award passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Mandi, H.P., in Reference Petition No. 72 of 2008, dated 23.07.2012, in terms whereof, the Reference Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Reference Court. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that the land of the appellant situated in Village Tatapani, District Shimla was acquired for the purpose of the construction of Kol Dam Hydro Electric Project. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 11.12.2000. After complying with the codal formalities, the award was passed by the Collector on 16.02.2008. Feeling aggrieved by the said award, the appellant preferred a Reference Petition on the ground that the compensation awarded to the land owner was low, inadequate and was liable to be modified. According to the landlord, the entire acquired land was situated on road-head in Village Tatapani, which was a tourist spot and also had religious significance and according to the land owner, the commercial potentiality of the land was ignored by the Collector, while announcing the award. The contention of the land owner was not accepted by the beneficiary of the acquisition proceedings. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Reference Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the marked value of the acquired land assessed by the Collector is not adequate. If so, what is the market value of the land and to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled? OPP 2. Relief.” 4. On the basis of the evidence led by the parties in support of their respective contentions, the issues were decided as under:- “Issue No.1: No Relief: Petition dismissed as per operative part of the award.” 5. Learned Reference Court held that the land owner was not able to demonstrate that the award announced in favour of the land owner was inadequate. It further held that no sale deed etc., was produced by the land owner to substantiate his contention. Learned Reference Court held that the land owner was not able to demonstrate that the award announced in favour of the land owner was inadequate. It further held that no sale deed etc., was produced by the land owner to substantiate his contention. It further held that there was no contention raised in the Reference Petition that the compensation paid for the structure/building was inadequate or the same was not paid and the evidence which was led in this behalf by the land owner could not be considered for the purpose of the enhancement of the compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to CMP No. 18409 of 2023 filed under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which application hereby stands allowed, as the additional evidence sought to be led by the petitioner is the copy of the award dated 13.09.2013, passed by the learned Reference Court in the case of persons similarly situated as the appellant, which is necessary and relevant for the purpose of adjudication of this appeal. Learned counsel placing reliance on said Award, submits that as the award amount announced by the Collector, was enhanced by the learned Reference Court in the other Reference Petitions by holding that the land owners were entitled to the market value of the highest quality of land acquired, the appellant herein is at least entitled to the said relief because in the present case the award has been announced on the basis of the classification of land. He submitted that this appeal, therefore, deserves to be allowed and the award passed by the learned Collector as well as the learned Reference Court require modification to the extent that the appellant be held entitled to compensation on the basis of the market value of the best quality of land assessed by the Collector. 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has emphatically denied this contention of the appellant and submitted that the appeal being devoid of any merit be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2 as well as learned Additional Advocate General. 9. 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has emphatically denied this contention of the appellant and submitted that the appeal being devoid of any merit be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2 as well as learned Additional Advocate General. 9. As the counsel for the appellant has restricted his arguments qua the grant of the best price as was assessed for the classification of land, therefore, the Court is not dwelling upon the other issues. As far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, a perusal of the record demonstrates that the award that was passed by the learned Collector in favour of the land owner was on the basis of the classification of the land of the land owner. The market value for different classification as proposed for village Tatapani, on the basis of which the award was announced by the learned Collector are quoted herein below:- “Village Classification of land Market value per bigha Tattapani Dhani Abal Rs.6,41,032.00 Dhani Dom Rs.5,29,548.00 Barani Abal/Abadi, Khalwara etc. Rs.3,90,194.00 Barani Dom Rs.3,13,548.00 Barani Som Rs.2,09,032.00 Bagicha Barani/Kulahu Rs.6,96,774.00 Banjar Kable Kashat/Banjar Jadid Rs.1,04,516.00 Khadyatar Gair Mumkin Rs.83,613.00” 10. In terms of the award passed by the learned Reference Court in the case of other land owners, similarly situated as the present appellant, whose land was also acquired for the purpose of the construction of Kol Dam in Village Tatapani, learned Reference Court held that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as well as this Court, the compensation was liable to be determined on the highest value determined by the Collector and taking the highest value assessed by land Acquisition Collector to be the indicator of the market value prevalent in the area at the time of notification, the land owners were entitled compensation at the rate of Rs.6,41,032/- per bigha irrespective of the classification of land as the land was acquired for the same purpose and no development was required to be made by the respondents. 11. 11. In the present case also, as the land of the appellant was acquired for the same project, meaning thereby, that acquisition is for the same purpose and no development is required to be made by the respondents, therefore, herein also the appellant is entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.6,41,032/- per bigha irrespective of the classification of the land. To this relief, the appellant is entitled to on the basis of the settled law by the Hon’ble Apex Court as also this Court. 12. Accordingly this appeal is allowed by modifying the award passed by the learned Reference Court and by holding that the appellant is held entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.6,41,032/- per bigha irrespective of the quality of the land for the reason that the land has been acquired for the same purpose and was situated in the same area as was the land of the land owners in Reference Petition No. 72 of 2008, appended with the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the CPC. Rest of the award passed by learned Collector is not disturbed by this Court. 13. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.