Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dadu Ram vs Land Acquisition Collector And Others on 29 March, 2016
Author: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
Bench: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
RFA No. 246 of 2008 along with RFA .
Nos. 247 to 251 of 2008
Decided on: 29th March, 2016
RFA No. 246 of 2008
Dadu Ram .......Appellant.
of
Versus
Land Acquisition Collector and others rt ...Respondents.
RFA No. 247 of 2008 Dila Ram and another .......Appellants.
Versus Land Acquisition Collector and others ...Respondents.
RFA No. 248 of 2008 Sunka Ram and others .......Appellants.
Versus Land Acquisition Collector and others ...Respondents.
RFA No. 249 of 2008Dropti and another .......Appellants.
Versus Land Acquisition Collector and others ...Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:00:05 :::HCHP 2 RFA No. 250 of 2008 Lekh Ram .......Appellant.
.
Versus
Land Acquisition Collector and others ...Respondents.
RFA No. 251 of 2008
of
Babu Ram and others .......Appellants.
rt Versus
Land Acquisition Collector and others ...Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the appellants: Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate (in all the appeals) For the respondents: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Mr. D.S. Nainta, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 2 (in all the appeals).
Mr. Chandranaryana Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 3- NTPC (in all the appeals).
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge (Oral).
This judgment shall dispose of present appeal and its connected matters as aforesaid having arisen 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:00:05 :::HCHP 3from the common award dated 31.5.2008 whereby learned District Judge, Bilaspur has dismissed the .
references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act preferred by the appellants herein.
2. The appellants (hereinafter referred to as the of petitioners-claimants) are resident of two different villages namely Devla Chamb and Nehar. Their land was rt acquired for the public purpose namely construction of Kol Dam Hydro Electric Project. The Notification under Section 4 of the Act to acquire the land of the petitioners-claimants measuring 422-05 bighas situate in both the villages was issued on 16.10.2000. The same was published in the issue of Hindi daily 'Divya Himachal' and English daily 'Indian Express' on 20.10.2000, whereas in the gazette on 18.10.2000. The Land Acquisition Collector (Kol Dam), the 1st respondent on observation of the entire procedure prescribed under the Act has announced award No. 3/2002 pertaining to this acquisition. The Collector taking into consideration that in both villages no instance of sale of land had taken place preceding one year from the issuance of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:00:05 :::HCHP 4 the Notification under Section 4 of the Act has made the rates of land approved by the District Collector, Bilaspur .
vide letter No. BLS-KDR-4(9)/94-III-18777 dated 10.5.2002 basis to assess the market value of the acquired land and on categorization of the same on the request of the of petitioners-claimants into two different categories i.e. Majrua (Barani/cultivated land) and 'Gair Majrua' rt (uncultivated land) determined the market value of the 'Majrua' as `4,68,496.11/- and that of 'Gair Majrua' `1,04,117.44/- and awarded the compensation payable to the petitioners-claimants accordingly. They, however, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the determination of the market value by the 1st respondent have preferred the references under Section 18 of the Act. The same were forwarded to learned District Judge, Bilaspur.
3. The references eight in number came to be registered. The grouse as brought to the Court by the petitioners-claimants was that the market value of the acquired land determined by learned Collector is highly inadequate, as according to them taking into consideration the proximity of the acquired land from ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:00:05 :::HCHP 5 the national highway, ACC Barmana and Dehar Power House, its market value should have not been less then .
`10,000,00/-(ten lac) per bigha. The compensation, therefore, was sought to be enhanced taking into consideration the following factors:
of
(i) That this land is immediately adjoining Mandi District and Slapper Colony and Hydle Project known as Dehar Power House which is also very near to it.
rt
(ii) That near to it A.C.C. Factory, Barmana is also situated, which is a very important business concern. Due to this the value has also multiplied many fold.
(iii) That N.H. 21 passes near to this land and the same is very useful for any business.
(iv) That all modern facilities like hospitals, schools, college, roads etc. are available nearby which has added high in its value.
(v) That due to Dehar Power House and A.C.C. Barmana, it has become tourist place due to its geographical situation, which has multiplied its value.
(vi) That due to hilly terrain a land is scares and demand is very hgith even for one bishwa one has to pay lacs of rupees and due to high value no body can dare to purchase land in Bighas.
(vii) That this land is known for sugarcane due to its higher fertility and this land is also known for turmeric and ginger which multiply its value.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:00:05 :::HCHP 6
(viii) That there is plenty of limestone, which is very important for industries which also multiply its value.
.
(ix) That the acquired land is very important for cultivation of Khair trees, which is very valuable and costly for its herbal importance i.e. Katha. Its cultivation gives immediate property to the land owners and this cultivation is repeated after 10 years which gives income to the tune of Rs. five lacs. On this account compensation for 10 of decades may be given.
4. The respondents on entering appearance rt have resisted and contested the claim of the petitioners on the grounds inter-alia that the market value of the acquired land determined by the 1st respondent is absolutely just and reasonable. The said respondent has taken into consideration all relevant and legal parameters. In the adjoining village Harnoda, the market value of the acquired land was claimed to be `50,000/- per bigha. It is also denied that the acquired land was cultivable and orchard were also raised thereon.
5. Rejoinder was filed. On the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court has framed the following issues:
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:00:05 :::HCHP 71. Whether the petitioners are entitled to enhancement of compensation as alleged, if so, its effect. ....OPP.
.
2. Relief.
6. The parties were put to trial. The petitioners-
claimants in order to substantiate their claims in the of references they made have examined evidence comprising oral as well as documentary. The petitioner-
rt claimant Gurditta in reference petition No. 29/03 has appeared himself as PW-1. The petitioners-claimants have also examined Sh. Shyam Lal, PW-2, Kirpal Singh, PW-3, Sh. Kala, PW-4. Sh. Dandu Ram, PW-5, Sh.
Yashwant Singh Dhiman, PW-6 and Sh. Ram Singh, PW-7.
Learned counsel representing them in his statement recorded separately had produced in evidence copies of sale deeds Ext. P-1 to Ext. P-14.
7. On the other hand, no evidence on behalf of respondent No. 3-NTPC Barmana, the beneficiary except for tendering in evidence copies of sale deeds Ext. R-1 to Ext. R-8 and copy of agreement Ext. R-9, was intended to be produced.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:00:05 :::HCHP 88. Similarly, on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 also, no evidence except for tendering sale deed Ext.R-A .
by learned District Attorney in his statement recorded separately was produced.
9. Learned reference Court on appreciation of of the evidence comprising oral as well as documentary has arrived at a conclusion that no case for re-
rt determination of the market value of the acquired land is made out. Consequently, the market value thereof as assessed by the 1st respondent was affirmed and all the references were dismissed vide common award, which is under challenge in these appeals.
10. The legality and validity of the impugned award has been questioned on the grounds inter-alia that the same is passed on surmises and conjectures.
Overwhelming oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the petitioners-claimants is stated to be erroneously ignored. The Court below has erred in not considering the sale instances Ext. P-2, P-4, P-6, P-8, P-10, P-12 and P-14 produced in evidence by them. The market value of the land in the area is more than ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:00:05 :::HCHP 9 `50,000,00/- (fifty lacs) per bigha. The market value determined by the Collector is stated to be highly .
inadequate. The Land Acquisition Collector also erred in determining different rates for 'Majrua' and Gair Majrua' land, which according to learned counsel for the of petitioner is against the settled legal principles.
11. Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, learned counsel rt representing the petitioners-claimants has strenuously contended that the sale instances Ext. P-1 and Ext. P-14 of course pertains to adjoining villages including village Harnoda should have been taken into consideration to determine the market value of the acquired land, particularly, when the Collector has himself concluded that no instance of sale has taken place in village Nehra, Devla Chang. Mr. Chauhan has also drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that the compensation should have been awarded at flat rates, irrespective of the nature and category of the acquired land, in view of the same acquired for common public purpose, i.e. the construction of Kol Dam Hydro Electric Project.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:00:05 :::HCHP 1012. On the other hand, Mr. D.S. Nainta, learned Additional Advocate General has pointed out from the .
record that the learned Reference Court below has appreciated the evidence available on record in its right perspective and has not committed any illegality or of irregularity while dismissing the references filed by the petitioners-claimants.
13. rt Mr. C.N. Singh, learned counsel representing respondent No. 3, the beneficiary, has pointed out that the market value of the acquired land as assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector is just and reasonable.
According to Mr. Singh, as per evidence produced by the petitioners-claimants themselves, the sale deeds came to be executed in that area near and around the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act and the date of laying foundation stone of the project.
14. On analyzing the rival submissions and the evidence available on record, following points arise for determination in these appeals:
1. Whether the reference Court has committed illegality or irregularity by not placing reliance ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:00:05 :::HCHP 11 on the sale instances Ext. P-1 to Ext. P-14, tendered in evidence on behalf of the .
petitioners-claimants, and on that count the judgment is perverse hence not legally sustainable?
2. Whether the reference Court below was right while determining the market value of the of acquired land on categorization of the same as 'Majrua' and 'Gair Majrua'?
15. rt Now, if coming to point No. 1 supra, Mr. Chauhan learned counsel has urged that the sale instances Ext. P-1 to Ext. P-14 should have been relied upon even without vendor and vendee not examined.
Also that, there is no legal requirement of the examination of vendor and vendee and the sale instances, if produced in evidence and not objected to by the opposite party, can be relied upon. Be it stated that as per legal principles settled at this stage the sale deeds produced in evidence being registered documents should be taken into consideration at the time of determination of the market value of the acquired land, because the same being the registered ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:00:05 :::HCHP 12 documents, the authenticity and genuineness thereof cannot be questioned. It is held so by the Apex Court in .
Himmat Singh and others v. State of M.P. and others, 2014(1) Civil Court Cases, 301 (SC). The Apex Court in Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Gujarat and another of v. Madhubai Gobarbhai and another (2009) 15 SCC 125, has also held that certified copies of the sale deeds are rt admissible in evidence as exemplars in land acquisition matters, even if the vendor or vendee have not been examined. Similar is the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in Cement Corporation of India Ltd. v. Purya and others (2004) 8 SCC 270. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, Mr. Chahuan is absolutely justified in arguing that the sale deeds produced in evidence can be relied upon for determination of the market value of the acquired land, even if the vendor or vendee were not examined.
16. In the case in hand, the sale deeds Ext. P-1 to Ext. P-14 have been produced in evidence by learned counsel representing the petitioners-claimants in his own statement recorded separately without there being any ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:00:05 :::HCHP 13 objection thereto raised on behalf of the opposite party.
However, the question arises that in view of the evidence .
as has come on record by way of statements of witnesses examined by the petitioners themselves, would it be safe to place reliance on these documents. The of answer to this poser in all fairness and in the ends of justice would be in negative for the reason that Gurditta, rt petitioner in lead reference petition No. 29/03, while in the witness box as PW-1 has expressed his ignorance so far as the contents of the affidavit he produced in evidence are concerned. Not only this but as per his version the affidavit is false being not prepared at his instance. As per his further version in the cross-
examination, the petitioners were in the knowledge of setting up of Kol Dam Hydro Electric Project there in February, 2000. It is in June, 2000, the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India has laid the foundation stone of this project. He also tells us that after February, 2000, the local residents started selling small portion of their lands, whereas, no sale transactions had taken place in their village for the last 10 years. According to him, in their ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:00:05 :::HCHP 14 village no Senior Secondary School, bank, dispensary and college etc., are in existence. PW-2 Shyam Lal is .
petitioner No. 2 in reference petition No. 31/03. If coming to his version in the cross-examination, he tells us that in February, 2000, the villagers acquired knowledge of that Kol Dam Hydro Electric Project is being set up in that area. The foundation stone of the project was laid down rt on 5.6.2000. No land was sold in their village for the last 10-15 years. He also admits that in their village college, dispensary, bank etc. were not in existence. PW-3 Kirpal Singh, PW-4 Kala and PW-5 Dandu Ram have stated in one voice in their examination-in-chief that when they acquired knowledge about the construction of Kol Dam project in their area, they purchased land by way of registered sale deeds in the names of their cousins Bhagat Ram and Lekh Ram so that they could get employment in the project and get the plot also under the rehabilitation scheme. As per their further version, the sale consideration as mentioned in the sale deeds were neither paid by the vendee nor received by the vendors and that these transactions had taken place ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:00:05 :::HCHP 15 without there being any exchange of sale consideration.
Similar is their version in cross-examination. Similar is the .
version of PW-7 Ram Singh, as according to him his father had purchased the land in the name of his grand children Suman Kumar and Sunil, so that they could get of the relief under the rehabilitation scheme and the sale consideration was not passed on and the sale deeds rt were executed for enrichment of the near and dear.
17. Thus in view of the own evidence produced by the petitioners themselves and discussed hereinabove, it is not safe to place reliance on the sale deeds Ext. P-1 to Ext. P-14, because the possibility of the same also being executed merely to seek hike in the prices of land in the area and to obtain the benefits such as seeking allotment of plots under the rehabilitation scheme without there being exchange of sale consideration, cannot be ruled-out. Above all, the perusal of these documents reveal that the same have been executed near and around the date of laying the foundation stone of the project by the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India on 5.6.2000 and after February, 2000, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:00:05 :::HCHP 16 when as per version of the petitioners' witnesses, the local residents had come to know about setting up of .
the Kol Dam Project in their area. Therefore, the testimonies of PW-1 to PW-5 and PW-7 belie the authenticity and genuineness of the sale deeds Ext. P-1 of to Ext. P-14 and as such, it is not safe to place reliance on the same. Learned reference Court, therefore, has not rt committed any illegality or irregularity in discarding the same. Therefore, no case is made out warranting interference qua this aspect of the award. Point No. 1 is answered accordingly.
18. Now, if coming to the 2nd point, it is seen that learned reference Court has categorized the land in two categories i.e. 'Majrua' and 'Gair Majrua', of course on the request of the petitioners, as is apparent from the perusal of award announced by the Land Acquisition Collector. In view of the evidence available on record, prior to inception of Kol Dam Project, no developmental activities had taken place there by that time. Meaning thereby that the entire area was in the process of being developed. The land was acquired for the construction ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:00:05 :::HCHP 17 of project. Therefore, taking into consideration, the purpose for which the land was acquired, the same .
should not have been classified 'Majrua' or 'Gair Majrua' for the reason that the land was acquired for the construction of project and as such, the classification of of the acquired land completely looses significance. I am drawing support in this regard from the judgment of this rt Court in Executive Engineer and another v. Dila Ram, Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 1007, the relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:
"12. The Collector has awarded compensation of the acquired land as per classification of the land. The learned District Judge has enhanced the compensation of the acquired land as per classification. One of the questions in the above appeals is whether awarding of compensation as per classification of the land is proper or not. The purpose of the acquisition in the present case is for construction of road and for that purpose classification completely looses significance. The acquired land is to be used/developed as a single unit for the construction of road. In H.P. Housing Board ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:00:05 :::HCHP 18 vs. Ram Lal and others, 2003 (3)Shim.L.C 64 the acquisition was made for construction of .
housing board colony and compensation was assessed as per classification by the Collector. In the High Court the persons interested limited their claim for enhancement of compensation to Rs. 400/-
of per square meter irrespective of classification. On those facts, a learned single Judge of this court has held that when rt the land is being developed for constructing housing colony, the classification completely looses significance and awarded compensation on the flat rate of Rs. 200/- per square meter for the entire land irrespective of classification or nearness to the road. In Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh and others 2005 (12) SCC 564, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has approved the view of the High Court assessing the market value of the lands under acquisition in the five villages at uniform rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre, irrespective of their nature or quality and whether the same was situated nearer to the road or at some distance therefrom. In the present case also, the acquired land is to be used/developed for the construction of the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:00:05 :::HCHP 19 road as a single unit and, therefore, classification of the land looses significance.
.
In these circumstances, the persons interested are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per biswa of Rs.
1,20,000/- per bigha of the acquired land irrespective of classification, which is more of than the market value assessed by learned District Judge."
19. rt The point in issue, therefore, is squarely covered by the judgment supra. Learned reference Court, therefore, should have determined the market value of the acquired land at flat rates, irrespective of its categorization. It is seen that the Court below has assessed the market value of the land categorized as 'Majrua' @`4,68,497.00/- and 'Gair Majrua' @ `1,04,117.44/-. In view of the above, this Court determine the market value of the acquired land at flat rates, irrespective of its nature as `4,68,497.00/-
20. In view of what has been said hereinabove, the market value of the acquired land is assessed as `4,68,497.00/-. The impugned award is ordered to be ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:00:05 :::HCHP 20 modified accordingly. The amount of compensation be now calculated along with all statutory benefits payable .
thereon accordingly and deposited in the Registry of this Court within three months from today. All the appeals are disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if of any, shall also stand disposed of. No orders so as to costs.
rt March 29, 2016 (Dharam Chand Chaudhary) Judge (naveen) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:00:05 :::HCHP