Himachal Pradesh High Court
Smt. Kagdu Devi And Others vs Collector Land Acquisition Hppwd Mandi on 6 August, 2021
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA .
RFA No. 606 of 2012 Reserved on : 30.7.2021 Decided on: 6.8.2021 ______ Smt. Kagdu Devi and others .....Appellants.
Versus Collector Land Acquisition HPPWD Mandi, HP and others Coram:
r to The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
....Respondents.
Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants: Mr. Balram Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Hemant Vaid, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Vikrant Chandel and Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Deputy Advocate Generals.
____________________________________________________________ Sureshwar Thakur, Judge The appellants/land owners (for short "the petitioners") became aggrieved by a verdict made by the learned Reference Court, on 20.12.2011, upon, Reference Petition No. 8 of 2005. Consequently, there-against the instant appeal becomes reared before this Court.
1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:50:16 :::CIS...2
2. Through the impugned award, the learned .
Reference Court, made, vis-à-vis, the acquired lands the hereinafter extracted reliefs:-
" In view of the discussion made above, the reference petition is answered accordingly and the market value of the acquired land has been assessed at Rs.30,820/- per bigha irrespective of the kind and nature of the land at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act and the petitioners are also held entitled to the following relief:-
(a) Solatium @ 30% under Section 23(2) of the Act on the compensation assessed under Section 23(1) of the Act;
(b) Additional compensation under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act @ 12% per annum on the market value determined above from the date of publication of the notification under Sec. 4 of the Act, till date of award of Collector;
(c) Inerest @ 9% per annum on enhanced amount of compensation under Section 23 (1) additional compensation under Section 23 (1-A) and solatium under Section 23 (2) of the Act from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act for the first one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum.::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:50:16 :::CIS
...3
(d) Interest under Section 34 of the Act, if not paid."
.
3. The petitioners' land was acquired for the construction of Ghaur-Sardhwar road. The Land Acquisition Collector concerned, had in his award made on 23.10.2000, assessed the compensatory value of the acquired land in a sum of Rs.1,51,999/-, and, the value of house/dhara was assessed in a sum of Rs.7450/-, and, he thereon had added 30% compulsory acquisition charges, and, also had added thereon 12% additional compensation hence commencing from 3.12.1996 to 16.6.2000, besides had added thereon 9%, and, 15% interest w.e.f 3.12.98 to 31.10.2000.
4. The petitioners became aggrieved by the aforemade award and preferred Reference Petition No. 8 of 2005 before the learned Reference Court. Upon the afore Reference Petition, the afore extracted relief was pronounced. Being aggrieved therefrom, the petitioners preferred the instant appeal before this Court.
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:50:16 :::CIS...4
5. The learned Reference Court in determining the .
market value of the acquired land, had made dependence upon sale deed(s) respectively borne in Ex.
PB, and, in Ex. RW-2/A. The learned Reference Court, had concluded that the average price of one Biswa of land as per sale deed Ex. PB comes to Rs. 2220/-. The learned Reference Court had also concluded, that the average price of one biswa of land as per sale deed Ex.
RW-2/A comes to Rs.660/-. However after meteing 10% increase in the value of the average price of one biswa of land as comprised in Ex. PB, he determined the market value thereof in a sum of Rs.2422/-. Consequently, upon a cumulative consideration of Ex. PB, and, of Ex. RW-2/A, he concluded that the market value of the acquired lands comes to Rs. 30,820/- per bigha.
6. The aforemade determination by the learned Reference Court, is a just fair and reasonable determination, vis-à-vis the amount of compensation payable to the petitioners vis-à-vis the acquired land(s).
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:50:16 :::CIS...5 Therefore it does not merit any interference by this Court.
.
Further more, the addition(s) thereon of the statutory levies are also just and tenable and do not warrant any interference from this Court.
7. Be that as it may, though PW-4, Tilak Raj, an official of HPPWD, upon, his stepping into the witness box, had in his examination-in-chief, made a testification that in the apposite measurement book, a reflection is cast that 290 trees of various species, and, aged between 1-2 months, rather existed on the acquired land. Despite the afore testification of PW-4 existing on the records of learned Reference Court, the latter proceeded to only on the ground, that the Land Acquisition Collector, has not made any determination qua therewith, hence concluded that no compensation is determinable to the land owners, vis-à-vis, the afore number of trees, aged between 1-2 months, and, as existed on the acquired land. The afore reason in declining compensation to the petitioners vis-à-vis trees of various species existing on the ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:50:16 :::CIS ...6 acquired land, cannot be countenanced as thereupon .
the meritworthy testification of PW-4 would become untenably discarded. However, since the contemplated formula vis-a-vis the assessment of compensation qua therewith is not available before this Court, and, would rather be made available, only upon the expert concerned hence testifying before the learned Reference Court. Thereupon in so far as the afore declining of compensation to the petitioners is concerned, this Court proceeds to set aside the afore portion of the award and also proceeds to remand the lis with a direction to the learned Reference Court, to, after receiving evidence of the expert concerned, as, appertaining to the formula for reckoning compensation for the trees occurring on the acquired land, determine just and fair compensation qua therewith. The afore exercise be completed positively within two months hereafter.
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:50:16 :::CIS...7
8. Lastly the learned counsel for the petitioners has .
contended with much vigor before this Court that declining of compensation by the learned Reference Court vis-à-vis the earnings reared from the water mill, as, existed on the acquired land, is, impermissible. The afore declining by the learned Reference Court however, is merit-worthy as PW-4 has un-erodingly voiced, that in the apposite land records, the water mill/gharat is depicted to be in an unworkable condition, hence, defacilitating the petitioners to rear any income therefrom.
9. In view of the above, determination of compensation by the learned Reference Court vis-à-vis the acquired land of the petitioners is not interfered with.
However, the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court in so far they relate to declining of compensation vis-à-vis trees occurring on the acquired land and as disclosed by PW-4, does warrant interference, and, accordingly is quashed and set aside.
The matter is remanded to the learned Reference Court, ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:50:16 :::CIS ...8 to after receiving evidence of the expert concerned .
appertaining to the formula for reckoning compensation for the trees occurring on the acquired land hence to determine just and fair compensation qua therewith. The afore exercise be completed positively within two months hereafter.
All pending applications stand disposed of.
6th August, 2021 (Sureshwar Thakur),
(priti) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:50:16 :::CIS