Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rfa No.70/2016 And Co No.41/2016 vs Piara Singh on 1 June, 2016
Author: Sanjay Karol
Bench: Sanjay Karol
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA No.70 of 2016 alongwith connected matters and Cross Objections. Date of Decision : June 1, 2016 .
1. RFA No.70/2016 and CO No.41/2016 Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants Versus Piara Singh ...Respondent of
2. RFA No.71/2016 and CO No.42/2016 Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants rt Versus Gian ...Respondent
3. RFA No.72/2016 and CO No.43/2016 Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants Versus Paramjeet Singh ...Respondent
4. RFA No.73/2016 and CO No.44/2016 Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants Versus Amro Devi ...Respondent
5. RFA No.74/2016 and CO No.45/2016 Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants Versus Satya Devi ...Respondent
6. RFA No.75/2016 and CO No.46/2016 Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:32:00 :::HCHP ...2...
Versus
Achhru Ram ...Respondent
7. RFA No.76/2016 and CO No.47/2016 .
Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants Versus Kishan Singh ...Respondent
8. RFA No.77/2016 and CO No.48/2016 of Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants Versus Ajay Kumar ...Respondent
9. rt RFA No.78/2016 and CO No.49/2016 Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants Versus Kishan Dei ...Respondent
10. RFA No.79/2016 and CO No.50/2016 Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants Versus Ajay Kumar ...Respondent
11. RFA No.80/2016 and CO No.51/2016 Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants Versus Ram Kumar ...Respondent
12. RFA No.81/2016 and CO No.52/2016 Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants Versus ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:32:00 :::HCHP ...3...
Ram Karan ...Respondent
13. RFA No.82/2016 and CO No.53/2016 Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants .
Versus
Chinta Singh ...Respondent
14. RFA No.83/2016 and CO No.54/2016 Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants of Versus Jagta ...Respondent
15. RFA No.84/2016 and CO No.55/2016 rt Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants Versus Dayal Singh ...Respondent
16. RFA No.85/2016 and CO No.56/2016 Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants Versus Kala Ram ...Respondent
17. RFA No.86/2016 and CO No.57/2016 Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants Versus Sandeep ...Respondent
18. RFA No.87/2016 and CO No.58/2016 Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants Versus Jeeto Devi ...Respondent ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:32:00 :::HCHP ...4...
19. RFA No.88/2016 and CO No.59/2016 Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants Versus .
Daulat Ram ...Respondent
20. RFA No.89/2016 and CO No.60/2016 Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants Versus Surender Kaur ...Respondent of
21. RFA No.90/2016 and CO No.61/2016 Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants rt Jeeto Devi Versus ...Respondent
22. RFA No.91/2016 and CO No.62/2016 Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants Versus Harpreet Singh ...Respondent
23. RFA No.92/2016 and CO No.63/2016 Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants Versus Geeta Ram ...Respondent
24. RFA No.93/2016 and CO No.64/2016 Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants Versus Lachmi Devi ...Respondent
25. RFA No.94/2016 and CO No.65/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:32:00 :::HCHP ...5...
Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants Versus Bal Kishan ...Respondent .
26. RFA No.95/2016 and CO No.66/2016 Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants Versus Bachna ...Respondent
27. RFA No.96/2016 and CO No.67/2016 of Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants Versus Kala Ram rt ...Respondent
28. RFA No.97/2016 and CO No.68/2016 Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants Versus Karam Chand ...Respondent
29. RFA No.98/2016 and CO No.69/2016 Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants Versus Harpreet Singh ...Respondent
30. RFA No.99/2016 and CO No.70/2016 Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants Versus Amar Singh ...Respondent
31. RFA No.100/2016 and CO No.71/2016 Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:32:00 :::HCHP ...6...
Versus Paramjeet Singh ...Respondent
32. RFA No.101/2016 and CO No.72/2016 .
Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants Versus Pritam Chand ...Respondent
33. RFA No.102/2016 and CO No.73/2016 Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants of Versus Mahender Singh ...Respondent
34. RFA No.103/2016 and CO No.74/2016 rt Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants Versus Fuman Singh ...Respondent
35. RFA No.104/2016 and CO No.75/2016 Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants Versus Rabi Dean ...Respondent
36. RFA No.105/2016 and CO No.76/2016 Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants Versus Amar Singh ...Respondent
37. RFA No.106/2016 and CO No.77/2016 Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants Versus Kailo ...Respondent ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:32:00 :::HCHP ...7...
38. RFA No.107/2016 and CO No.78/2016 Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants .
Versus
Chuchra ...Respondent
39. RFA No.108/2016 and CO No.79/2016 Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants Versus of Joginder Singh ...Respondent
40. RFA No.109/2016 and CO No.80/2016 Land Acquisition Collector & others ...Appellants rt Versus Surjeet Singh ...Respondent Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.Whether approved for reporting? No. 1
For the Appellant : Mr. R.M. Bisht, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Puneet Rajta, Deputy Advocate General, in all the appeals.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms Devyani Sharma, Advocate, in all the appeals.
Sanjay Karol, Judge Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:32:00 :::HCHP
...8...
The short controversy which arises for consideratin in these appeals/Cross Objections, is as to whether the Court below rightly re-determined the .
compensation payable to the claimants, by awarding uniform rates, regardless of the classification/category of the acquired land.
2. Acquisition proceedings for the public purpose, of namely setting up of Apparel Park in District Solan came to be commenced with the publication of notification dated rt 18.9.2004, issued under the provisions of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
3. Vide award dated 27.6.2005, the Collector (Land Acquisition), in exercise of his statutory powers, determined the market value of the acquired land, by awarding different rates for different category/ classification of acquired land.
4. It is not in dispute that the entire acquired land is situate in villages Katha and Bhatauli Kalan of Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan. With respect to the land falling in village Katha, market value for the land of the category 'Changar Abal Barani', at the rate of `2,00,244/- per bigha ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:32:00 :::HCHP ...9...
and 'Lahari Abal Barani', at the rate of `5,64,324/- per bigha; and with respect to the land situated in village Bhatauli Kalan, for category 'Changar Abal Barani', at the .
rate of `1,82,375/- per bigha and for 'Lahari Abal Barani', at the rate of `72,950/- per bigha, came to be assessed by the Collector.
5. Aggrieved thereof, the claimants/private of parties in these appeals, filed Land Reference Petitions, under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act. On the rt strength of the exemplar sale deeds, as also award passed by the learned District Judge, Solan, in relation to another set of acquisition proceedings, the claimants sought re-
determination of the market value at `15,00,000/- per bigha.
6. It is a matter of record that while answering the issues framed by the Court below, exemplar sale deeds, so proven on record, were not considered by the Court below, for the reason that they pertained to a period much prior to the initiation of the acquisition proceedings and also the market value, in terms thereof came to be much less than what stood determined by the Collector himself. Insofar as exemplar award is concerned, the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:32:00 :::HCHP ...10...
court below thought it prudent not to rely thereupon, for the simple reason that it pertained to acquisition proceedings initiated much after the acquisition .
proceedings in question.
7. It is a settled principle of law that an application, under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act is to be adjudicated as a plaint and the onus to prove the of market value, other than the one, which stands determined by the Collector, is always on the claimants. If rt the initial burden of proving such fact is discharged by the claimants, then the onus to defend the award is upon the State. (See: Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Krigowda and others, (2010) 5 SCC 708).
8. In the instant case, one finds that to establish their claims, claimants have examined as many as 15 witnesses, whereas two witnesses stand examined by the State.
9. Record reveals that the claimants, through the testimonies of Smt. Rama (PW-2), Ahri Avtar Singh (PW-4), Shri Keshav Ram (PW-5), Shri Thakur Lal (PW-6), Shri Ashwani Kumar (PW-7), Shri Arun Kumar (PW-8), Shri Geeta Ram (PW-10), Shri Baldev Ram (PW-11) and Shri ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:32:00 :::HCHP ...11...
Jagat Ram (PW-12), have proved on record exemplar sale deeds (Ex.PW-5/A, 6/A to 6/C, 4/A and 2/A).
10. They rightly stood rejected and the reasons .
are evident - (a) they pertain to small transactions, (b) they pertain to a period either much prior or subsequent to the initiation of acquisition proceedings, (c) in certain cases, there is no evidence disclosing similarity of nature of and potentiality of the land, (d) they pertain to an adjoining village and a far of place. To this extent, rt findings recorded by the Court below in Paras-31 to 39, cannot be said to be illegal, perverse or erroneous.
11. Insofar as the exemplar award (Ex,.PW-9/A) is concerned, it pertains to acquisition of land in village Billanwali Lambana, whereby land acquisition proceedings came to be commenced much after the initiation of the proceedings in question. Hence, the court below rightly did not rely upon the same.
12. When one peruses the testimony of the claimants - Shri Om Parkash (PW-1), Shri Ajay Kumar (PW-
13) and Shri Mohinder Singh (PW-15), one finds that through their unshattered testimony, they have been able to establish that the land acquired in both the villages is ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:32:00 :::HCHP ...12...
contiguous, forming a single chunk. Also, in and around the area, there has been lot of industrial development and the land is surrounded by factories, established by leading .
industrial houses. The land has great potential of being put to commercial use, being situated within the heart of the industrial township. In fact, it was only to give further impetuous to industrial growth, in terms of the Industrial of Policy, that a decision was taken to set up the Apparel Park in the already developed industrial township of Baddi-
Barotiwala.
rt
13. Shri Ashwani Kumar (PW-7) a Government official has unequivocally deposed that land situated in both the villages is contiguous and comprises one compact block. In Para-44 of the impugned award, the learned District Judge has elaborately discussed the testimonies of Shri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Ajay Kumar and Shri Mohinder Singh, while coming to the following conclusion:
"44. It is in the evidence of the petitioners that the entire acquired land which is situated in two villages i.e. Katha and Bhatauli Kalan is a compact piece of land having same potentiality, nature as well as value. Even on perusal of Khaka Dasti Ex.PW7/A which has been proved by Ashwani Kumar (PW-7) it is clear that village Bhatauli Kalan and village Katha are adjoining to each other and acquired land is a compact block of land. Be it noted ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:32:00 :::HCHP ...13...
that there is no cross-examination of PW-13 to PW-15 on behalf of the respondents on the point that entire acquired land is a compact piece of land which is situated in the vicinity of highly developed area, Baddi where many .
industries are already situated which is well connected with the road. It is also in their evidence that the acquired land is within the vicinity of Baddi town which is fully developed where residential colonies, market, schools, hospitals and all other facilities of road and transportation etc. were already available. There is again no cross-examination of the of aforesaid witnesses on behalf of the respondents on the aforesaid point which means that the testimonies of PW-13 to PW-15 who are petitioners in the sintant case on the aforesaid point have gone unchallenged and rt the same also remained unrebutted as there is no evidence of the respondents on record to prove anything to the contrary. Thus in view of this it is established that the land in question has potential value for commercial growth and there are schools, commercial complexes, numerous industries, hospitals and other facilities of road and transportation and, therefore, it cannot be disputed that the acquired land has potential of growth and is capable of being put to commercial use and the lands so acquired are in continuity and has been acquired for the similar purpose. However, the Collector has not only awarded different rates for different categories of land but also different rates for different villages and as already observed it is established on record that the lands acquired in both the villages i.e. Katha and Bhatauli Kalan are contiguous to each other and have all the advantages as enumerated above. In Dinesh Chhetry Vs State of Himachal Pradesh & ors RFA No.156/2003 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. on 20.08.2007 the Land Acquisition Collector has awarded different rates for different categories of land and ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:32:00 :::HCHP ...14...
different rates for different villages. In such circumstances it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of HP that since the acquired land is in different villages and having same potentialities of increase in value due to its .
location and as such the petitioners are entitled to enhancement of compensation by taking highest value of the land assessed by the Collector on flat rate irrespective of classification of the land and its location."
14. Noticeably, to defend the award, State of examined Shri Satya Pal (RW-1) and Shri Tilak Raj (RW-2), who also admitted the land to be a compact block having great commercial value.
rt In fact, they admit to have
uniformly offered a sum of `4,00,000/- per bigha,
regardless of classification, during the negotiations, which had taken place, prior to the passing of the award dated 27.6.2005.
15. It is here that the Collector committed an error. In fact, it is an act of unfairness. Now, if the acquirer was negotiating with the claimants at a much higher value, then there was no reason for him to have determined the market value on a lower side and that too category-wise.
16. It has also come in the testimony of the witnesses that the entire acquired land is to be fully utilized for the industrial purpose. It is not the case of the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:32:00 :::HCHP ...15...
State that on account of geographical/topographical conditions, some development activity is required to be carried out on the spot. In fact, it stands admitted by RW-
.
2 that the entire land is having a leveled surface. As such, no development activity is required to be carried out.
17. Hence, there is enough evidence on record to establish that the Collector seriously erred and committed of gross mistake in determining the market value of the land for categories, other than Lahari Abal Barani.
18. rt It is a settled principle of law that the claimants are entitled to compensation, which is just, fair and reasonable. The "market value" would mean the price which a willing purchaser would pay to the willing seller for a property, having due regard to its existing condition, with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities, when laid out in the most advantageous manner excluding any advantage due to the carrying out of the public purpose for which property is compulsorily required. (See: Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another, (1988) 3 SCC 751).
19. This Court in Dinesh Chhetry v. State of H.P. and others, RFA No.156 of 2003, and connected matters, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:32:00 :::HCHP ...16...
decided on 20.8.2007, has uniformly awarded the highest amount of compensation determined by the Collector, with regard to all categories of acquired land. In fact, the Court .
observed as under:
"The learned Advocate General submitted that keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by this Court in LAC, Solan and another vs. Bhoop Ram, reported in 1997 (2) Sim.L.C. 229, the highest amount of compensation awarded by the Collector should be uniformly applied to all the of landowners whose land stand acquired in terms of the awards in question and are subject matter of the present appeals regardless of classification of the land as the purpose of rtacquisition is same and similar. Therefore, according to him all the claimants in the present appeal whose land has been acquired for the construction of Kumarhatti - Oachghat road should be awarded Rs.1,33,333.20 or say Rs.1,33,330.00 per bigha. His submission is based on the fact that there is enough evidence on record to show that the acquired land in different villages are having the same advantage and potentiality of increase in value due to its location in and around the areas where the land is put to commercial use.
In Bhoop Ram (supra), this Court has held as under:-
"The Land Acquisition Collector and the District Judge have determined the market value at a lesser rate for the acquired land, which was classified as Bangar Doem, Bangar Kadim, Ghasni, Charand and Gair Mumkin but in our view the classification of acquired land for the agricultural purpose is not relevant looking to the common purpose of acquisition for the construction of road and uniform rate of Rs.40 per sq. metre or Rs.30,000/- per Bigha should be ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:32:00 :::HCHP ...17...
awarded irrespective of the classification of the acquired land."
The aforesaid judgment has been consistently followed by the Court and in RFA .
No.2 of 1995, titled Phul Singh vs. LAC, this Court has held that if the and has potential for setting up of industry, the whole of it, irrespective of the kind and class of the land can legitimately presumed to be same market value.
In my view, the submission of the learned Advocate General is extremely fair and totally in consonance with the principles of law laid down of by the Apex Court.
Perusal of the some of the award shows that the Court below has already held that even if one category of the land is better than the rt other category for the agricultural purposes, however, in view of the probable further use of the land for the public purpose, the land of different categories would be deemed to be having similar potentiality and as such similar rate is required to be awarded uniformly irrespective of the category of land. In these cases, I am in agreement with the view taken by the Court below and do not find any infirmity in the decision so arrived. The amount offered by the Collector for the best value of the land i.e. Rs.1,33,330/-, therefore, is fair. Needless to add that I have not gone into the various exhibited sale deeds for determining the just, fair and reasonable market value of the acquired land in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties at the Bar."
20. To similar effect is the decision rendered by this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and others v. Nand Lal and others, RFA No.84 of 2010, alongwith connected matters, decided on 1.5.2014.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:32:00 :::HCHP...18...
21. As such, it cannot be said that the Court below erred in misapplying the provisions of law to the given facts and circumstances. As such, no infirmity can be .
found in the impugned award, passed by the learned District Judge, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, in Petition No.3- NL/4 of 2008/06, titled as Amar Singh v. The Land Acquisition Collector and others, and other connected of petitions.
22. Hence, all the appeals and Cross Objections rt stand disposed of. Pending applications also stand disposed of, having become infructuous.
Amount of compensation, in terms of order dated 6.4.2016 be deposited, within two months from today, in the Registry of this Court. Whereafter, it shall be open for the claimants to move appropriate application for release of the same.
( Sanjay Karol ),
June 1, 2016(sd) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:32:00 :::HCHP