Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Secretary vs Smt. Geeta & Others on 24 February, 2016
Author: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
Bench: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
RFA No.55 of 2009 Decided on: 24th February,2016 .
The Secretary, HP,PWD & another .......Appellant.
Versus
Smt. Geeta & others. ...Respondents.
Coram
of
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. D.S. Nainta and Mr. Virender Verma, Addl.
rtAGs with Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Dy. AG.
For the respondent: Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate. Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge(Oral) State of Himachal Pradesh is in appeal before this Court. Challenge is to the award dated 12.12.2008 passed by learned District Judge( Forest) Shimla, in land reference petition No.38-S/4 of 2008/05, whereby the market value of the acquired land and also fruit bearing and non-fruit bearing trees in existence thereon has been determined and compensation awarded to the respondents herein (petitioners in the trial Court).
2. Petitioners-claimants are residents of village Kashani, Sub- Tehsil Tikkar, District Shimla, H.P. The appellants- State has proposed to construct Baidhar -Kashani Road and for that purpose the land belonging to the petitioners in village Kashani was acquired by notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 9.4.2001. The Land Acquisition Collector(appellant No.2 herein) on 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:46:00 :::HCHP 2 observation of the procedure prescribed under the Act has determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.2000/- per biswa viz Rs.40,000/- per bigha. However, the .
petitioners aggrieved thereby have approached the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 18 of the Act, with a prayer to refer the matter to learned District Judge for re-determination of the market value of the acquired land as according to them the value of the of same land at the relevant time was more than 5 lakhs per bigha. The Land Acquisition Collector has referred the matter to District Court.
rt After taking on record the reply of respondents-appellants, the trial Court has framed the following issues in the reference petition on 24.5.2006:-
1. Whether the respondent has not assessed properly the market value of the acquired land, if so, what was its value at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, as alleged?OPP.
2. Whether fruit trees of the petitioner were also acquired along with the land, if so, to what effect?OPP.
3. Whether eight Deodar trees were also acquired along with the land, if so, to what effect?OPP.
4. Relief:-
3. One of the petitioners Sh. Yashwant Singh has stepped into the witness box as PW-5. The petitioners have also examined Sh.
Ram Lal, Junior Assistant in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Shimla as PW-1, who has proved Ex.PA, a certified copy of rates approved by Deputy Commissioner, Shimla in respect of the land acquired for the construction of road in revenue estate Sharorntha.
4. PW-2 Naresh Kumar is Horticulture Extension Officer and as per his report Ex. PB, he assessed the market value of fruit bearing ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:46:00 :::HCHP 3 trees which were in existence over the acquired land as Rs. 18,061/-. PW-3 ,Shri Geeta Ram, Investigator Grade-II, in Labour Bureau, Shimla has proved the consumer price index during the period of 1966 to .
2001 Ex. PW-3/A. PW-4, Sh. Adarsh Mohan Block Officer, Forest Division, Rohru, has assessed the market value of seven non-fruit Deodar trees which were standing over the acquired land as Rs. 1,48,212/-. PW-6, Sh. Bhajan Dass is a resident of adjoining Village, of Thana and he has stated about the quality and potentiality of the acquired land.
5. On the rt other hand, respondents-appellants have examined Sh. Rajinder Kumar Sharma, Jr. Engineer to show that Village Kashani where the acquired land is situated was not connected by any road.RW-2, Sh. Arun Lal is the Patwari of patwar Circle, Tikkar, who has proved khakha dasti of Village Kashani Ex. RW-2/A. RW-3, Sh. Shiv Ram Bali, Naib Tehsildar of Office of Land Acquisition Collector Winter Field, Shimla has stated that the land measuring 0-3- 19 hectare was acquired for the construction of Baidhar-Tikkar Road and the award was announced on 24.4.2004. He admitted in his cross-examination that the market value of 8 Deodar trees which were in existence over the acquired land got made from DFO, Rohru was Rs. 3,26,646/-.
6. It is the evidence referred to hereinabove and taking into consideration, learned trial Court has determined the market value of the acquired land and awarded the compensation to the petitioners at the enhanced rate.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:46:00 :::HCHP 4
7. The challenge to the impugned award is on the grounds that the same is based on irrelevant admission/statement made by the petitioner while in the witness box. The evidence .
produced by the appellant-State is stated to be erroneously discarded and as such the award not only illegal but against the provisions of Land Acquisition Act also. The Land Acquisition Collector is stated to have rightly taken into consideration the average market value as Rs.
of 2,000/- per biswa prevalent in Village Kashani at the relevant time i.e. Rs. 40,000/- per bigha. The learned Court below is stated to have rt wrongly enhanced the same as Rs. 2,20,212/- per bigha. The impugned award being not sustainable in the eyes of law has, therefore, been sought to be quashed and set-aside.
8. On hearing the learned Additional Advocate General and learned counsel representing the petitioners-claimants and going through the record of the case, it would not be proper to conclude that learned trial Court has not committed any illegality and irregularity while determining the market value of the acquired land and enhancing the compensation payable to the petitioners-claimants for the reasons that the rates of the land in Ex. PA acquired for the construction of road in adjoining Village Sarontha made basis by learned trial Court for re-determination of the market value of the land were fixed by the District Collector, Shimla. Therefore, it is own document of the appellants-respondents. The same has even been proved in the lower Court by PW-1, Ram Lal, Jr. Assistant in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Shimla. The appellants-respondents, therefore, cannot be said to have any complaint against the document ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:46:00 :::HCHP 5 Ex. PA and re-determination of the market value of the acquired land on the basis thereof. So far as the fruit trees which were standing over the acquired land are concerned, there is no dispute qua the .
numbers thereof. The value thereof has been assessed by Sh. Naresh Kumar, PW-2, Horticulture Extension Officer, working in the Horticulture Department. He has assessed the market value of the fruit trees as Rs. 18,061/- in his report Ex. PB. The award of of compensation four times of the market value of the trees so assessed/ supported by the price index Ex. PW-3/A has been proved by Sh.
rt Geeta Ram, Investigator Grade-II, in the office of Labour Bureau, Shimla.
9. Coming to non-fruit bearing trees (Deodar) seven in number, PW-4 Sh. Adarsh Mohan, Block Officer, Forest Division, has assessed the market value thereof as Rs. 1,48,212/-. Irrespective of RW-3, Sh. Shiv Ram Bali, Naib Tehsildar has stated that the valuation got made from the DFO, Rohru, thereof was Rs. 3,26,646/-, the trial Court has awarded only a sum of Rs. 1,48,212.16/-, as assessed by PW-4, Shri Adarsh Mohan. Therefore, on this score also, the appellants- respondents cannot be said to be aggrieved in any manner whatsoever. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, learned trial Court has re-determined the market value of the land and also the price of fruit/non-fruit bearing trees strictly in accordance with law and on the basis of the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties during the course of the trial.
10. The impugned award cannot be said to be legally unsustainable and the same rather deserves to be upheld. ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:46:00 :::HCHP 6
Consequently,this appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
.
(Dharam Chand Chaudhary)
February 24, 2016 Judge
(shankar)
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:46:00 :::HCHP