Himachal Pradesh High Court
Collector Land Acquisition vs Shri Kewalu & Another on 8 September, 2016
Author: Sanjay Karol
Bench: Sanjay Karol
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RFA No. 197 of 2010 alongwith RFA Nos.198 to 209, 211 to 240, 242 to 247 of 2010.
.
Date of Decision : September 8, 2016.
1. RFA No. 197 of 2010 Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd . & another ...Appellants .
Versus Shri Kewalu & another ...Respondents.
of
2. RFA No. 198 of 2010 Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
rt Versus
Smt. Rukmani Devi & another ...Respondents.
3. RFA No. 199 of 2010
Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
Versus Shri Mohinder Singh & another ...Respondents.
4. RFA No. 200 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
Versus Shri Govind Ram & another ...Respondents.
5. RFA No. 201 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
Versus Shri Jhabe Ram & another ...Respondents.
6. RFA No. 202 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
Versus Shri Rewati Ram & another ...Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:25 :::HCHP 2 7. RFA No. 203 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
Versus Shri Bodhu & another ...Respondents.
.
8. RFA No. 204 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
Versus Shri Kadashu & another ...Respondents.
9. RFA No. 205 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
of Versus Shri Hari Singh & others ...Respondents.
10. RFA No. 206 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another rt ...Appellants .
Versus Shri Rattan Dass & another ...Respondents.
11. RFA No. 207 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
Versus Smt. Lal Dassi Ram & another ...Respondents.
12. RFA No. 208 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
Versus Shri Kurme Ram & another ...Respondents.
13. RFA No. 209 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
Versus Shri Puran Chand & another ...Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:25 :::HCHP 3 14. RFA No. 211 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
Versus Shri Gajju Ram & another ...Respondents.
.
15. RFA No. 212 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
Versus Shri Ram Rattan & another ...Respondents.
16. RFA No. 213 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
of Versus Shri Poshu Ram & another ...Respondents.
17. RFA No. 214 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another rt ...Appellants .
Versus Shri Gian Chand & others ...Respondents.
18. RFA No. 215 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
Versus Shri Bodhu Ram & another ...Respondents.
19. RFA No. 216 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
Versus Shri Prithvi Chand & others ...Respondents.
20. RFA No. 217 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
Versus Smt. Nokhu & another ...Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:25 :::HCHP 4 21. RFA No. 218 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
Versus Shri Kishan Chand & another ...Respondents.
.
22. RFA No. 219 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
Versus Smt. Nirmala Devi & another ...Respondents.
23. RFA No. 220 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
of Versus Shri Hari Dass & others ...Respondents.
24. RFA No. 221 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another rt ...Appellants .
Versus Smt. Heti Devi & others ...Respondents.
25. RFA No. 222 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
Versus Shri Amar Chand & others ...Respondents.
26. RFA No. 223 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
Versus Smt. Kamla Devi & others ...Respondents.
27. RFA No. 224 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
Versus Shri Paras Ram & another ...Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:25 :::HCHP 5 28. RFA No. 225 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
Versus Shri Mohar Singh & anoth er ...Respondents.
.
29. RFA No. 226 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
Versus Shri Gopal Chand & others ...Respondents.
30. RFA No. 227 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
of Versus Shri Rattan Chand & another ...Respondents.
31. RFA No. 228 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another rt ...Appellants .
Versus Shri Ses Ram & another ...Respondents.
32. RFA No. 229 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
Versus Shri Prem Chand & others ...Respondents.
33. RFA No. 230 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
Versus Shri Dola Ram & another ...Respondents.
34. RFA No. 231 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
Versus Shri Dola Ram & others ...Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:25 :::HCHP 6 35. RFA No. 232 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
Versus Shri Ram Lal & another ...Respondents.
.
36. RFA No. 233 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
Versus Shri Dhian Singh & another ...Respondents.
37. RFA No. 234 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
of Versus Smt. Bhag Dei & another ...Respondents.
38. RFA No. 235 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another rt ...Appellants .
Versus Shri Teja Singh & others ...Respondents.
39. RFA No. 236 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
Versus Shri Shyam Sunder & others ...Respondents.
40. RFA No. 237 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
Versus Shri Karmu & another ...Respondents.
41. RFA No. 238 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
Versus Shri Mohar Singh & others ...Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:25 :::HCHP 7 42. RFA No. 239 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
Versus Shri Jhabe Ram & others ...Respondents.
.
43. RFA No. 240 of 2010Collector Land Acquisit ion, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
Versus Smt. Veena Devi & another ...Respondents.
44. RFA No. 242 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
of Versus Shri Anant Ram & another ...Respondents.
45. RFA No. 243 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another rt ...Appellants .
Versus Smt. Roshna Devi & another ...Respondents.
46. RFA No. 244 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants.
Versus Smt. Shakuntla Devi & another ...Respondents.
47. RFA No. 245 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
Versus Smt. Kala Devi & another ...Respondents.
48. RFA No. 246 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
Versus Shri Thakur Dass & another ...Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:25 :::HCHP 8 49. RFA No. 247 of 2010Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC Ltd. & another ...Appellants .
Versus Smt. Kubju & another ...Respondents.
.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1No.
For the Appellant : Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Sr. Advocate
with Ms.Shreya Chauhan,
Advocate, for the appellant in all the appeals.
of For the Respondents: M/s Sunil Mohan Goel, Rajeev Jiwan & Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocates, for the private respondent(s) in rt respective RFAs.
Mr. R.S. Verma, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent -State in all the appeals.
Sanjay Karol, J (oral).
Primary issue before this Court is as to whether in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Cement Corpn. of India Ltd. Versus Purya and others, (2004) 8 SCC 270, more specifically paragraphs 25 to 31 of the said report trial Court was right in not considering the sale deeds (Ex.R1, Ex.R3, Ex.R5, Ex.R7, Ex.R9, Ex.R11, Ex.R13, Ex.R17, Ex.R19, Ex.R21, Ex.R23, Ex.R25, Ex.R27, Ex.R29, Ex.R31, Ex.R33, Ex.R35, Ex.R37, Ex.R39, Ex.R41, Ex.R43, Ex.R45, Ex.R47, Ex.R49, Ex.R51, Ex.R53, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:25 :::HCHP 9
Ex.R55, Ex.R57, Ex.R59, Ex.R61, Ex.R63, Ex.R65, Ex.R67, Ex.R69, Ex.R73, Ex.R75, Ex.R77 & Ex.R79) tendered in evidence by the beneficiary/appellant herein only on .
account of non examination of the vendor(s) and vendee (s).
2. Also legality of the award in redetermining the market value of the acquired land , varying from `4,048/-
of to `1,90,300/- per bigha to `3,60,000/- per bigha (`18,000/- per biswa) with respect to the acquired land in Phatti: Raila, Kanon and Manyashi, falling within the rt jurisdiction of Collector, Kullu, is subject matter of consideration.
3. For the public purpose, namely, construction of Parvati Hydro Electric Project, land situate in Phati Raila, Kanon and Manyashi, came to be acquired with the publication of the notification dated 18.10.2003, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Collector Land Acquisition in terms of his award No. 23, dated 09.08.2005, so passed under Section 11 of the Act, determined the market value of the acquired land category wise as under :-
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:25 :::HCHP 10Phati Raila Kothi Bhallan:
1. Bathal Awwal Rs.64,480/- per bigha
2. Bathal Dom Rs.48,360/- per .
bigha
3. Bathal Som Rs.32,240/- per bigha
4. Bathal Rs.24,180/- per Chaharm bigha Phati Manyashi Kothi Banogi:
of
1. Ropa Awal Rs.2,16,250/-
2. Ropa Dom Rs.1,90,300/-
per bigha
3. Ropa Som Rs.1,52,375/-
rt per bigha
4. Bagicha Awal Rs.1,34,075/-
per bigha
5. Bathal Awal Rs.1,34,075/-
per bigha
6. Bathal Dom Rs.1,29,750/-
per bigha
7. Bathal Som Rs.95,150/- per
bigha
8. Bathal Rs.60,550/- per
Chaharam bigha
9. Banjar Kadeem Rs.8,650/- per
bigha
Phati Kanon Kothi Bunga:
1. Ropa Dom Rs.1,25,488/-
per bigha
2. Ropa Som Rs.1,01,200/-
per bigha
3. Bathal Awal Rs.60,720/-per
bigha
4. Bathal Dom Rs.44,528/- per
bigha
5. Bathal Som Rs.28,336/- per
bigha
6. Bathal Rs.16,192/- per
Chaharam bigha
7. Banjar Kadeem Rs.4,048/- per
bigha
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:25 :::HCHP
11
4. It is a matter of record that various land owners laid challenge to the award by filing separate land reference petitions under Section 18 of th e Act, .
which came to be clubbed together by the Court below.
It is also a matter of record that subsequent to the consolidation of these petitions, Reference Petition No.69/2006, titled as Thakur Dass Versus Collector Land of Acquisition and others, was taken as a lead case, wherein as mutually agreed, parties led their evidence.
5. rtMarket value stands redetermined by the Court below by returning the following findings: (a) In the absence of the vendor and the vendee having proved the sale transactions sale deeds (Ex.R1, Ex.R3, Ex.R5, Ex.R7, Ex.R9, Ex.R11, Ex.R13, Ex.R17, Ex.R19, Ex.R21, Ex.R23, Ex.R25, Ex.R27, Ex.R29, Ex.R31, Ex.R33, Ex.R35, Ex.R37, Ex.R39, Ex.R41, Ex.R43, Ex.R45, Ex.R47, Ex.R49, Ex.R51, Ex.R53, Ex.R55, Ex.R57, Ex.R59, Ex.R61, Ex.R63, Ex.R65, Ex.R67, Ex.R69, Ex.R73, Ex.R75, Ex.R77 & Ex.R79) tendered in evidence by the beneficiary could not be taken into consideration; (b) sale deeds (Ex.PW.3/A, & Ex.PW.5/B) proved on record by the claimants established the average market value of one biswa of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:25 :::HCHP 12 land to be `30,000/- (`6,00,000/- per bigha), over which, deduction to the extent of 40% was required to be allowed in view of the exemplar sale deeds being of small .
chunk of land; (c) In the award dated 30.09.2005, titled as Khub Ram & another Versus Collector, Land Acquisition & others (Ex.PB), passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track, Kullu, H.P., pertaining to the of very same acquisition proceedings, market value already stands redetermined at much higher rate.
6. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court rt in Cement Corpn. of India (supra) has observed as under:-
"26. In the acquisition proceedings, sale deeds are required to be brought on record for the purpose of determining market value payable to the owner of the land when it is sought to be acquired.
27. Although by reason of the aforementioned provision the parties are free to produce original documents and prove the same in accordance with the terms of the rules of evidence as envisaged under the Indian Evidence Act, the LA Act provides for an alternative thereto by inserting the said provision in terms whereof the certified copies which are otherwise secondary evidence may be brought on record evidencing a transaction. Such transactions in terms of the aforementioned provision may be accepted in ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:25 :::HCHP 13 evidence. Acceptance of an evidence is not a term of art. It has an etymological meaning. It envisages exercise of judicial mind to the materials on record. Acceptance of evidence by a .
court would be dependent upon the facts of the case and other relevant factors. A piece of evidence in a given situation may be accepted by a court of law but in another it may not be.
28. Section 51-A of the LA Act may be read literally and having regard to the ordinary of meaning which can be attributed to the term "acceptance of evidence" relating to transaction evidenced by a sale deed, its admissibility in evidence would be beyond any question. We are rt not oblivious of the fact that only by bringing a documentary evidence in the record it is not automatically brought on the record. For bringing a documentary evidence on the record, the same must not only be admissible but the contents thereof must be proved in accordance with law. But when the statute enables a court to accept a sale deed on the records evidencing a transaction, nothing further is required to be done. The admissibility of a certified copy of sale deed by itself could not be held to be inadmissible as thereby a secondary evidence has been brought on record without proving the absence of primary evidence. Even the vendor or vendee thereof is not required to examine themselves for proving the contents thereof. This, however, would not mean that the contents of the transaction as evidenced by the registered sale deed would ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:25 :::HCHP 14 automatically be accepted. The legislature advisedly has used the word "may". A discretion, therefore, has been conferred upon a court to be exercised judicially i.e. upon taking into .
consideration the relevant factors .
29. In Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer V. Narasaiah, (2001) 3 SCC 530, this Court correctly understood the said scope and object of insertion of Section 51-A in the LA Act when it held thus: (SCC p. 535, para 13) of "It was in the wake of the aforesaid practical difficulties that the new Section 51 -A was introduced in the LA Act. When the section says rt that certified copy of a registered document 'may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document' it enables the court to treat what is recorded in the document, in respect of the transactions referred to therein, as evidence."
... ... ...
... ... ...
31. Thus, the reasoning of this Court in
Narasaiah's case that Section 51-A enables the party producing the certified copy of a sale transaction to rely on the contents of the document without having to examine the vendee or the vendor of that document is the correct position in law. This finding in Narasaiah's case (supra) is also supported by the decision of this Court in the case of Mangaldas Raghavji Ruparel (supra).::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:25 :::HCHP 15
32. Therefore, we have no hesitation in accepting this view of the Court in the Narasaiah's case as the correct view.
33. The submission of Mr. G. Chandrasekhar to .
the effect that the contents of a sale deed should be a conclusive proof as regard the transaction contained therein or the Court must raise a mandatory presumption in relation thereto in terms of Section 51-A of the Act cannot be accepted as the Court may or may not receive a of certified copy of sale deed in evidence. It is discretionary in nature. Only because a document is admissible in evidence, as would appear from the discussions made hereinbefore, the same by rt itself would not mean that the contents thereof stand proved. Secondly, having regard to the other materials brought on record, the Court may not accept the evidence contained in a deed of sale. When materials are brought on record by the parties to the lis, the Court is entitled to appreciate the evidence brought on records for determining the issues raised before it and in the said process, may accept one piece of evidence and reject the other.
... ... ...
35. A registered document in terms of Section 51-A of the Act may carry therewith a presumption of genuineness. Such a presumption, therefore, is rebuttable. Raising a presumption, therefore, does not amount to proof; it only shifts the burden of proof against whom the presumption operates for disproving it. Only if the presumption is not ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:25 :::HCHP 16 rebutted by discharging the burden, the Court may act on the basis of such presumption. Even when in terms of the Evidence Act, a provision has been made that the Court shall presume a fact, .
the same by itself would not be irrebuttable or conclusive. The genuineness of a transaction can always fall for adjudication, if any, question is raised in this behalf."
(Emphasis supplied)
7. The trial Court thus erred in outrightly of rejecting the exemplar sale deeds produced by the beneficiary.
8. rtHowever, in para-40 of the report itself, the Apex Court clarified that comparative nature of the location, suitability or marketability of the exemplar sale deed was necessarily required to be proved by the proponent.
9. Now in the instant case, only one witness was examined by the beneficiary and that being Bishan Kashyap (RW.1), a Clerk from the office of Sub-Registrar, Sainj, who only proved execution of these exemplar sale deeds. He is not even a witness to such transactions or is aware of the parties; area; nature or category of land.
No sale transaction ever took place in his presence. He is also not a local resident of the area. Hence, exemplar ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:25 :::HCHP 17 sale deeds (Ex.R1, Ex.R3, Ex.R5, Ex.R7, Ex.R9, Ex.R11, Ex.R13, Ex.R17, Ex.R19, Ex.R21, Ex.R23, Ex.R25, Ex.R27, Ex.R29, Ex.R31, Ex.R33, Ex.R35, Ex.R37, Ex.R39, Ex.R41, .
Ex.R43, Ex.R45, Ex.R47, Ex.R49, Ex.R51, Ex.R53, Ex.R55, Ex.R57, Ex.R59, Ex.R61, Ex.R63, Ex.R65, Ex.R67, Ex.R69, Ex.R73, Ex.R75, Ex.R77 & Ex.R79) cannot be looked into for the purposes of adjudicating the respective rights and of contentions of the parties in the determination of a fair market value. More so in the teeth of evidence of rebuttal led by the claimants. In a passing reference, it rt may only be observed that even in terms of said sale transactions, land stood sold in different Phatis ranging `1680/- to `3,01,000/- per bigha. These sale transactions pertain to the period October, 1999 to May, 2002. None from the office of the Land Acquisition Collector was produced by the beneficiary. Even no revenue officer was examined to establish comparability of the acquired land with that of the exemplar sale land.
10. However, it is a settled principle of law that a petition under Section 18 of the Act is to be treated as a plaint and the onus to establish the true and correct ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:25 :::HCHP 18 market value of the acquired land is always upon the claimants.
11. The claimants are expected to lead cogent .
and proper evidence in support of their claim. Onus primarily is on the claimants, which they can discharge while placing and proving on record sale instances and/or such other evidences as they deem proper, keeping in of mind the method of computation for awarding of compens ation which they rely upon. However, it cannot be said that there is no onus whatsoever upon the State rt in such reference proceedings. The court cannot lose sight of the fact that obligation to pay fair compensation is on the State in its absolute terms. Every case has to be examined on its own facts and the courts are expected to scrutinise the evidence led by the parties in such proceedings. (See: Special Land Acquisition Officer Versus Karigowda and others, (2010) 5 SCC 708).
12. Now in the instant case, one finds that the claimants have proved on record three exemplar sale deeds. Sale deed (Ex.PW.3/A ), dated 02.01.2003, pertain ing to sale of 2 biswas of land situate in Phati Kanon, for a sum of `60,000/-, stands proved on record ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:25 :::HCHP 19 by vendor Chokas Ram (PW.3); sale deed (Ex.PW.5/B), dated 14.11.2002, pertaining to sale of 2 biswas and 13 biswansi of land situate in Phati Manyashi, for a sum of .
`79,500/- (`30,000/- per biswa), stands proved by Dharam Singh (PW5); and sale deed (Ex.PW.10/B), dated 02.01.2003, pertaining to sale of 2 biswas of land situate in Phati Manyashi, for a sum of `1,21,000/- (`60,500/- per of biswa) , stands proved by Gian Chand (PW.10).
13. Significantly, all the aforesaid witnesses (vendors/vendees) have uncontrovertedly deposed that rt the acquired land is just adjacent to the exemplar land, having similar potentiality with regard to the use, nature and similarity of classification and value. On this issue, beneficiary did not cross-examine these witnesses. It is a matter of record that not only these sale transactions were accepted to be genuine by the authorities, but also parties acted thereupon and entries of mutation effected by the revenue authorities.
14. From the testimony of claimant Dhian Singh (PW.6), it is also evident that even he has been able to establish the market value determined by the Collector to be miserably low and the true and correct market ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:25 :::HCHP 20 value to be the one as depicted in the exemplar sale deeds. Noticeably, acquisition proceedings commenced in October, 2003 and sale transactions (Ex.PW.5/B and .
Ex.PW.10/B) are more proximate to that time.
Significantly, it could not be pointed out by the beneficiary that these sale transactions were sham or executed only in anticipation of the project coming in the of near future. Thus, there is no difficulty in accepting these exemplar sale deeds in determining the market value of the acquired land.
rt
15. It is urged on behalf of the beneficiary that system of belting ought to be adopted as the exemplar sale transactions pertain to small pieces of land, whereas, acquisition proceedings pertains to large chunk of land (approximately 132 bighas and 10 biswa).
Reliance is sought on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Land Acquisition Officer & Sub-Collector Gadwal Versus Shreelatha Bhoopal (Smt.) & another, (1997) 9 SCC 628 and Bhule Ram Versus Union of India and another, (2014) 11 SCC 307.
16. The aforesaid decisions clearly do not lay down the principle, as is sought to be argued before this ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:25 :::HCHP 21 Court. It is not the mandate of law, that sale transactions pertain ing to small chunk of land cannot not be considered at all.
.
17. The market value of a property for the purposes of Section 23 of the Act is the price at which the property changes hands from a willing seller to a willing, but not too anxio us a buyer, dealing at arms length.
of Prices fetched for similar lands with similar advantages and potentialities under bona fide transactions of sale at or about the time of the preliminary notification are the rt usual and, indeed the best evidences of market value.
{Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai (Deceased) through his Heirs and LRs. and Others v. State of Gujarat (1989) 4 SCC 250, Nelson Fernandes & Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa & Ors . (2007) 9 SCC 447}.
18. Now it is a settled principle of law that if the entire land is put for a public use and no area is left out for carrying out any developmental activity, then the claimants are entitled for compensation for the entire acquired land, at uniform rates, regardless of its categorization.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:25 :::HCHP 2219. The apex Court in Haridwar Development Authority vs. Raghubir Singh & others, (2010) 11 SCC 581 has upheld the award of compensation on uniform rates.
.
20. In Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh and others 2005(12) SCC 564, while determining the compensation for acquisition of land pertaining to five different villages, the apex Court uniformly awarded a of sum of ` 40,000/- per acre, irrespective of the classification and the category of land.
21. Further, in Nelson Fernades vs. Special Land rt Acquisition Officer 2007(9) SCC 447 while dealing with the case where the land was acquired for laying a Railway line, the Court held that no deduction by way of development charges was permissible as there was no question of any development thereof.
22. Similar view stands taken by this Court in Gulabi and etc. Vs. State of H.P., AIR 1998 HP 9 and later on in H.P. Housing oard vs. Ram Lal & Ors. 2003(3) Shim.
L.C. 64, which judgment has attained finality as SLP (Civil) No. 15674 -15675 of 2004 titled as Himachal Pradesh Housing Board vs. Ram Lal (D) by LRs & Others, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:25 :::HCHP 23 filed by the H.P. Housing Board came to be dismissed by the Apex Court on 16.8.2004.
23. This judgment was subsequently referred to .
and relied upon by this Court in Executive Engineer & Anr. vs . Dilla Ram {Latest HLJ 2008 HP 1007} and relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Harinder Pal Singh (supra) , wherein the market value of the land under of acquisition situated in five different villages was assessed uniformly, irrespective of its nature and quality, also awarded compensation on uniform rates.
rt
24. It is a matter of fact that the entire land was put to public purpose. Power project stood constructed thereupon. It was used for only one purpose and as such there cannot be any error in the uniform determination of the market value of the acquired land.
25. Now what is that real market value of the acquired land, the Apex Court has clearly held it to be that which a willing vendor and willing vendee are ready to receive and pay.
26. The market value is the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property having due regard to its existing condition with all its ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:25 :::HCHP 24 existing advantages and its potential possibilities when led out in most advantageous manner, excluding any advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for which .
the property is compulsorily acquired. In considering market value disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy should be disregarded. The question whether a land has of potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put and proximity to rt residential, commercial or industrial areas or institutions.
The existing amenities like, water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether near about Town is developing or has prospect of development have to be taken into consideration. (Atma Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another (2008) 2 SCC 568).
27. In Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (Dead) by LRs. & Ors . [(2005) 12 SCC 1], the Apex Court held that the best method, as is well-known, would be the amount which a willing purchaser would pay to the owner of the land. In absence of any direct evidence, the court, however, may take recourse to various other known ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:25 :::HCHP 25 methods. Evidence admissible therefor inter alia would be judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisitions of lands made in the same village and/or .
neighbouring villages. Such a judgment and award in the absence of any other evidence like deed of sale, report of the expert and other relevant evidence would have only evidentiary value.
of
28. In Suresh Kumar v. Town Improvement Trust, Bhopal [(1989) 2 SCC 329], the Apex Court has held that while determining the market value of the land acquired, rt it has to be correctly determined and paid so that there is neither unjust enrichment on the part of the acquirer nor undue deprivation on the part of the owner.
29. Now in the instant case, the geographical location and situation of the land; existing use of the land; its potentiality and comparability stands established on record. The entire acquired land even though being a large chunk could be put to agricultural use. Trial Court, was right in applying deduction to the extent of 40%. (S ee: Bhagwathula Samanna and others Versus Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:25 :::HCHP 26 Visakhapatnam Municipality, Visakhapatnam, (1991) 4 SCC 506.
30. Significantly, exemplar award (Ex.PB) .
pertaining to the land situate in Dhaugi, can be compared with the acquired land with respect to its location, quality and potentiality. In terms of the said award, entire land stands re-determined @ `4,00,000/-
of per bigha (`20,000/- per biswa) and can be relied upon in view of Pramod Gupta (supra).
31. It would be pertinent to point out that for the rt very same public purpose acquisition proceedings for the land situate in Phati Dhaugi, Kothi Bunga, Tehsil Sainj, District Kullu, also came to be commenced sometime in January, 2002. In the land reference petitions filed by several claimants, assailing the award passed by the Collector in determining the market value from `5,380/-
to 2,01,750 /-, the District Judge, vide award dated 30.09.2005, redetermined the market value to be `20,000/- per biswa. This Court while dismissing th e appeal filed by the beneficiary, assailing the said award, made the following observations, vide judgment dated 03.09.2008, passed in RFA No.31 of 2006, titled as ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:25 :::HCHP 27 Collector Land Acquisition Versus Yog Raj and others, alongwith other connected matters:-
"The claimants have proved that the market value of the land was in fact Rs.40,000/- per biswa. In .
the present case, the land owners have not filed any appeal and, therefore, I see no justification in enhancing the amount claimed by the land owners. In the impugned award, 50% deduction has been made while determining the average of price of Sale Deeds Ext.PW-2/A, Ext.PW-3/A and arriving at a sum of Rs.20,000/- per biswa. Further, deduction is not justifiable. Collector's Award No.4/2002 was based on annual average rt market value. Perusal of the award shows that there has been no basis of comparison at all Determination of rates without any basis is unfair to the claimants and not proper."
32. The aforesaid findings stand affirmed by the Apex Court with the dismis sal of the SLP No.4410- 4445/2009, titled as Collector, Land ACQ., NHPC Versus Khub Ram & Ors, on 18.11.2015.
33. No other point urged.
34. Entire land stands utilized by the beneficiary for the acquired purpose. It has not come on record that any developmental activity was required to be carried out by the beneficiary. In fact, the entire land stands utilized for the construction of the power project. As ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:25 :::HCHP 28 such, trial Court rightly re-determined the market value of the acquired land @ `18,000 /- per biswa (`3,60,000/-
per bigha) irrespective of its category and classification.
.
35. Hence in the given facts and circumstances, no interference is warranted. It cannot be said that all the findings returned by the Courts below are perverse, illegal or erroneous. As such, present appeals stand of disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.
36. Efforts put in by Ms.Shreya Chauhan, learned counsel, in rendering valuable assistance to this Court, rt are highly appreciable.
(Sanjay Karol), Judge.
September 8, 2016 (Purohit) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:25 :::HCHP