Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rfa No.124/2 vs Land Acquisition Collector And Others on 1 August, 2016
Author: Sanjay Karol
Bench: Sanjay Karol
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA No.124 of 2010 alongwith connected matters.
.
Reserved on : 22.6.2016
Date of Decision : 1.8.2016
1. RFA No.124/2010
Durga Dass ....Appellant.
versus
Land Acquisition Collector and others ...Respondents.
of
2. RFA No.105/2010
Land Acquisition Collector and others ....Appellants.
rt Versus
Krishan Lal and others ...Respondents.
3. RFA No.125/2010
Krishan Lal and others ....Appellants.
versus
Land Acquisition Collector and others ...Respondents.
4. RFA No.106/2010 Land Acquisition Collector ....Appellant.
versus Shonkia and others ...Respondents.
5. RFA No.107/2010Land Acquisition Collector ....Appellants.
versus
Sehaj Ram ...Respondent.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:55:49 :::HCHP
...2...
6. RFA No.109/2010
Land Acquisition Collector ....Appellant.
versus
.
Durga Dass and others ...Respondents.
7. RFA No.111/2010
Land Acquisition Collector and others ....Appellants.
versus
Sant Ram and others ...Respondents.
of
8. RFA No.112/2010
Land Acquisition Collector and others ....Appellants.
rt
Kuldeep Kumar and others
versus
...Respondents.
9. RFA No.113/2010
Land Acquisition Collector and others ....Appellants.
versus
Shiv Ram and others ...Respondents.
10. RFA No.126/2010
Desh Raj ....Appellant.
versus
Land Acquisition Collector and others ...Respondents.
11. RFA No.163/2010 Hari Dass ....Appellant.
versus
Land Acquisition Collector and others ...Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:55:49 :::HCHP
...3...
12. RFA No.369/2010
Kuldeep Kumar and others ....Appellants.
versus
.
Land Acquisition Collector and others ...Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
Present : Mr. M.S. Thakur, Advocate, for
the appellant(s) in RFA
Nos.124,126,163 & 369 of 2010 of and for respondent(s) in RFA Nos.105,106,107,109,111, 112,113 & 125 of 2010 rt Mr. R.S. Verma and Mr. R.M. Bisht, Additional Advocates General, for the appellants-State in RFA Nos.105,106,107,109,111,112,11 3 & 125 of 2010 and for respondents-State in RFA Nos.
124, 126, 163 and 369 of 2010.
Sanjay Karol, Judge In these appeals, challenge is laid to the award dated 1.1.2010, passed by learned District Judge, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, in a bunch of LAC Petitions.
Claimants as also the State are aggrieved of the same.
2. It is not in dispute that for the construction of Bill-Haripur Road, 9 bighas and 9 biswas of land, situate in Village Banni, Tehsil and District Solan, Himachal ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:55:49 :::HCHP ...4...
Pradesh, came to be acquired by the State. Acquisition proceedings commenced with the publication of Notification dated 17.4.2006, so issued under Section 4 of .
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Collector, Land Acquisition, passed award, which came to be published on 7.2.2008, in terms whereof, market value of the acquired land came to be of determined as under:
Classification of Rate per Bigha Rate per Biswa the land
1.
2.
3.
rt Bangar Awal Bangar Deom Bangar some Rs.43,125-00 Rs.31,250-00 Rs.11.875-00 Rs.2,156-00 Rs.1,563-00 Rs.596-00
4. Banjar Rs.5,662-00 Rs.281-00
5. Ghasni&Gair Rs.1,875-00 Rs.94-00 Mumkin
3. Aggrieved thereof, land owners filed Reference Petitions, which came to be consolidated and Land Reference No.44-S/4 of 2008, titled as Krishan Lal & others v. Land Acquisition Collector & others, treated as a lead case, in which evidence came to be led by the parties.
4. It is a matter of record that while passing the award, the Collector, Land Acquisition, kept in mind the market value, prevailing in village Roud. From the testimonies of the claimants' witnesses Ramesh Kumar ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:55:49 :::HCHP ...5...
(PW-1), Manohar Lal (PW-2), Desh Raj (PW-3) and Gian Chand (PW-4), it is evident that the land is situate in Mauza Banni, which is adjacent to Mauza Jabal-Jhamrot, .
Patta Browari, Tieukri, and not village Roud.
5. From their testimonies, it is evidently clear that village Banni is adjacent to village Jhamrot and village Roud is much below the boundary of village Banni.
of
6. From the testimony of Kamal Singh Pal (RW-
1), Assistant Engineer, H.P.P.W.D., it is evidently clear rt that the Collector, Land Acquisition, while determining the market value, took into account the average annual value fixed by the revenue authorities, for the purpose of compliance of the provisions of the Indian Stamps Act and collection of revenue from the agriculture produce.
7. Now this, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Government (NCT of Delhi) and others Versus Ajay Kumar and others, (2014) 13 SCC 734;
Haryana State Agricultural Market Board and another Versus Krishan Kumar and others, (2011) 15 SCC 297;
Pattammal and others Versus Union of India and another, (2005) 13 SCC 63; and Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan, District Badaun through its Secretary Versus ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:55:49 :::HCHP ...6...
Bipin Kumar and another, (2004) 2 SCC 283, was impermissible for the reason that income generated by the State from agricultural produce is not determinative .
of the real market value of the acquired land.
8. The question, which arises of consideration, is what is the fair market value of the acquired land. The State, in addition to the material relied upon by the of Collector, has placed on record sale deed (Ex.RW-1/B), whereby 2 biswas of land situate in village Roud was sold rt at the rate of `25,000/- per bigha. The said sale took place on 11.2.1999. But significantly, neither the vendor nor the vendee stand examined in Court. In any event, the said sale deed pertains to the year 1999, whereas acquisition proceedings came to be initiated in April, 2006. Also, there is no material to establish that boundary of village Roud is either proximate or similar to the acquired land which is situate in village Banni.
9. It is also a settled principle of law that the claimants have to establish their case by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence. Such evidence has to be within the meaning and scope of Section 3 and other relevant provisions of the Indian ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:55:49 :::HCHP ...7...
Evidence Act. Only such evidence, so proven in accordance with law which is admissible, is required to be considered by the Court.
.
10. Now, in the instant case, claimants have proved on record sale deed (Ex.PW-1/A), dated 18.2.2006, whereby 6 biswas of land of category 'Ghasni' in village Jabal Jhamrot was sold at the rate of `1,25,000/-
of per bigha and in terms of sale deed (Ex.PW-1/B), dated 18.2.2006, 5 biswas of land, in the very same village, was
11. rt sold at the rate of `1,00,000/- per bigha.
It has come on record, through the testimonies of the claimants' witnesses, as also Patwari Halqua Gian Chand (PW-4) that village Jhamrot touches the boundary of village Banni and the land situate in both these villages is similar and better than the land situate in village Roud. While stepping into the witness box, the land owners of these sale deeds have also deposed with regard to the comparability, potentiality and similarity of the acquired land with that of the exemplar sale deed.
Hence, the Court below rightly relied upon these exemplar sale deeds. But while doing so, principle of deduction of 1/3rd was rightly applied by the Court below.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:55:49 :::HCHP...8...
This was so done, after determining the cumulative average sale value of the exemplar sale deeds. The principle stands applied, keeping in view the law laid .
down by the apex Court in Haridwar Development Authority v. Raghubir Singh, 2010 (11) SCC 581. Hence, no error can be found in the impugned award, insofar as re-determination of the market value of the acquired land of at the rate of `74,100/- per bigha is concerned.
12. Now it is a settled principle of law that if the rt 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.
13. The apex Court in Haridwar Development Authority (supra), has upheld the award of compensation on uniform rates. Also it has acknowledged the principle of providing increase in the market value up to 10% to 12% per year for the land situated near urban areas having potential for non-agricultural development.
14. In Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh and others 2005(12) SCC 564, while determining the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:55:49 :::HCHP ...9...
compensation for acquisition of land pertaining to five different villages, the apex Court uniformly awarded a sum of ` 40,000/- per acre, irrespective of classification .
and category of land.
15. Further, in Nelson Fernades vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer 2007(9) SCC 447 while dealing with the case where the land was acquired for laying a of Railway line, the Court held that no deduction by way of development charges was permissible as there was no
16. rt question of any development thereof.
This Court, in Gulabi and etc. vs. State of H.P., AIR 1998 HP 9, where the land was acquired for the purpose of construction of National Highway-21, held that the claimants would be entitled to compensation uniformly for all classes of land irrespective of its classification or quality. This principle came to be followed and accepted by this Court in H.P. Housing Board vs. Ram Lal & Ors. 2003(3), Shim. L. C. 64, wherein the land was acquired for the purposes of setting up of a Housing Colony by the respondent authority itself. The Court held that:
"27. When the land is being developed for a housing colony, as in the present case, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:55:49 :::HCHP ...10...
classification completely looses significance. Reason being that it has to be developed as a single unit i.e. for housing colony. Similarly allowing higher price for land near the road and .
for the one which is at a distance from the road also does not provide any reasonable, muchless rational basis to allow less price for the area.
Reason being that a person may be interested to reside near the road side in a developed colony for so may reasons. Whereas another, of may like to live in the vicinity which is away from the road to avoid husble and bustle of being near the roadside and for many other rt reasons. In these circumstances it cannot be said that location of the land and its distance from the road is a good criteria and/ or for that matter classification for the assessment of compensation. In my view entire land under acquisition should have been assessed at Rs.200 per sq. meter irrespective of its classification and/ or distance from the road."
28. Faced with this situation, Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate, on behalf of Housing Board submitted, that it is matter of common knowledge that plots situated on the roadside carry higher price, as compared to the plots which are away from the road. This argument cannot be accepted in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in the case of Land Acquisition Officer Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittor v. L. Kamlamma (Smt.) Dead by LRs and ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:55:49 :::HCHP ...11...
others K. Krishnamachari and others, (1998) 2 SCC 385. What was held and is relevant was as under:-
"7. The argument advanced by Shri .
Nageswara Rao that the classification by the Land Acquisition Officer was in order and ought not to have been interfered with by the reference court or the High Court does not appeal to us. When a land is acquired which has the potentiality of being developed into an of urban land, merely because some portion of it abuts the main road, higher rate of rtcompensation should be paid while in respect of the lands on the interior side it should be at lower rate may not stand to reason because when sites are formed those abutting the main road may have its advantages as well as disadvantages. Many a discerning customer may prefer to stay in the interior and far away from the main road and may be willing to pay a reasonably higher price for that site. One cannot rely on the mere possibility so as to indulge in a meticulous exercise of classification of the land as was done by the Land Acquisition Officer when the entire land was acquired in one block and, therefore, classification of the same into different categories does not stand to reason."
17. This judgment has attained finality as SLP (Civil) No. 15674-15675 of 2004 titled as Himachal ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:55:49 :::HCHP ...12...
Pradesh Housing Board vs. Ram Lal (D) by LRs & Others, filed by the H.P. Housing Board stands dismissed by the Apex Court on 16.8.2004.
.
18. Also, the 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 of (supra), wherein the market value of the land under acquisition situated in five different villages was assessed rt uniformly irrespective of its nature and quality, also awarded compensation on uniform rates.
19. Hence, the Court below was right in awarding compensation, irrespective of category or classification of land, for the entire acquired land.
20. The second issue, which arises for consideration is as to whether the Court below could have awarded use and occupation charges at the rate of `1,000/- per bigha, per annum, alongwith interest with effect from the year 1992 till the date of initiation of the acquisition proceedings.
21. In view of the fact that the plea was taken before the Collector (Land Acquisition), and in view of the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:55:49 :::HCHP ...13...
law laid down by the Apex Court in R. L. Jain (D) by LRs v.
DDA and others, (2004) 4 SCC 79, the Court below was right in awarding the same.
.
Hence, all the appeals stand dismissed and disposed of. Pending application (s), if any, also stand disposed of.
( Sanjay Karol ),
of
August 1, 2016(sd) Judge.
rt
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:55:49 :::HCHP