Himachal Pradesh High Court
Vidya Sagar vs The Land Acquisition Collector And ... on 9 May, 2016
Author: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
Bench: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
RFA No. 24 of 2010 a/w RFA Nos.
.
25, 70, 71, 72 with C.O. No. 689 of 2011, 73 with C.O. No. 269 of 2010, 74 with C.O. No. 688 of 2011, 75, 76, 77 and 78 of 2010.
Reserved on: 20th April, 2016 Decided on: 9th May, 2016 of
1. RFA No. 24 of 2010 Vidya Sagar .......Appellant rt Versus The Land Acquisition Collector and others ...Respondents.
For the appellant: Mr. H.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Gautam, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Mr. D.S. Nainta, Addl. A.G for respondents No. 1 and 2.
Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No. 3.
___________________________________________________________ 2. RFA No. 25 of 2010 Mohan Lal and others .......Appellants Versus The Land Acquisition Collector and others ...Respondents.
For the appellant: Mr. H.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Gautam, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Mr. D.S. Nainta, Addl. A.G for respondents No. 1 and 2.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:18:28 :::HCHP 2Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No. 3.
.
3. RFA No. 70 of 2010General Manager, Northern Railway .......Appellant Versus Vidya Sagar and others ...Respondents.
of For the appellant: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. H.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate with Mr.
rt Gaurav Gautam, Advocate for
respondent No. 1.
Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate
General with Mr. D.S. Nainta, Addl. A.G for respondents No. 2 and 3.
___________________________________________________________ 4. RFA No. 71 of 2010 General Manager, Northern Railway .......Appellant Versus Kedar Nath and others ...Respondents.
For the appellant: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for
respondents No. 2 to 4.
Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate
General with Mr. D.S. Nainta, Addl. A.G for respondents No. 5 and 6.
___________________________________________________________ ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:18:28 :::HCHP 3
5. RFA No. 72 of 2010 a/w C.O. No. 689 of 2011 General Manager, Northern Railway .......Appellant .
Versus Narinder Kumar and others ...Respondents.
For the appellant: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate.
of For the respondents: Mr. H.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4.
rt Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Mr. D.S. Nainta, Addl. A.G for respondents No. 5 and 6.
___________________________________________________________
6. RFA No. 73 of 2010 a/w C.O. No. 269/2010 General Manager, Northern Railway .......Appellant Versus Narinder Kumar and others ...Respondents.
For the appellant: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. H.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Gautam, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 5, 8 to 11, 13, 14, 28, 38 and 41.
Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 6, 7, 20 to 26, 30 & 31. Mr. Basant Thakur, Advocate for respondents No. 12, 27, 44(a), 49(a) and 49(b).
___________________________________________________________ ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:18:28 :::HCHP 4
7. RFA No. 74 of 2010 a/w C.O. No. 688 of 2011 General Manager, Northern Railway .......Appellant .
Versus Ved Parkash and others ...Respondents.
For the appellant: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate.
of For the respondents: Mr. H.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3.
rt Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Mr. D.S. Nainta, Addl. A.G for respondents No. 4 and 5.
___________________________________________________________ 8. RFA No. 75 of 2010 General Manager, Northern Railway .......Appellant Versus Smt. Bimla Devi and others ...Respondents.
For the appellant: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. H.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Mr. D.S. Nainta, Addl. A.G for respondents No. 2 and 3.
___________________________________________________________ 9. RFA No. 76 of 2010 General Manager, Northern Railway .......Appellant Versus ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:18:28 :::HCHP 5 Joginder Singh and others ...Respondents.
For the appellant: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate.
.
For the respondents: Mr. H.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Mr. D.S. Nainta, Addl. A.G for respondents No. 2 and 3.
of ___________________________________________________________ 10. RFA No. 77 of 2010 rt General Manager, Northern Railway .......Appellant Versus Kedar Nath and others ...Respondents.
For the appellant: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for
respondents No. 2, 5 and 6.
Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate
General with Mr. D.S. Nainta, Addl.
A.G for respondents No. 3 and 4.
___________________________________________________________ 11. RFA No. 78 of 2010 General Manager, Northern Railway .......Appellant Versus Mohan Lal and others ...Respondents.
For the appellant: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:18:28 :::HCHP 6For the respondents: Mr. H.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3.
.
Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Mr. D.S. Nainta, Addl. A.G for respondents No. 4 and 5.
Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
of Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge (Oral).
rtThis judgment shall dispose of present appeal and also the connected ones as aforesaid though arising out of the separate awards, however, pertain to the same acquisition proceedings and the land acquired for the same public purpose, namely construction of railway line between Nangal Dam to Talwara. The reference Court below in modification of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector has determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of `700/- per square meters, irrespective of its class and kind and awarded compensation to the appellants who being owners of the land were 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:18:28 :::HCHP 7petitioners in references preferred under Section 18 of the Act.
.
2. The appellants, (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) are aggrieved from the award because the Land Acquisition Collector though has determined the of market value of the acquired land taking into consideration its nature and kind and proximity from the rt State highway, link road and the land which is neither touching the state highway or link road, however, in respect of certain category(s) of land even on higher side as compared to the market value thereof determined by the reference Court. A chart below depicts different prices of land in respect of its kind and nature as well as proximity from the State Highway, link road or otherwise determined by learned Collector:
Market rate per sq. meter.
Sr.No. Class of land Land touching Land touching link Other land
State Highway road
1. Chahi Abbal 100-00 800-00 600-00
2. Barani Abbal 800-00 700-00 500-00
and Banjar
Kadim
therefore
3. Banjar 400-00 350-00 300-00
Kadim,
Kharkana
Khairtar
4. Gair Mumkin 250-00 200-00 155-00
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:18:28 :::HCHP
8
5. Gair Mumkin 1000-00 800-00 600-00
Abadi and
Sehan Ahata
6. Gair Mumkin 800-00 700-00 500-00
.
abadi and
Sehan,
Ahata
3. It is thus seen from the chart ibid that learned Collector in the case of 'Chahi Avval' land touching the of state highway assessed the market value @ `1,000/- per square meter and that touching the link road `800/- per rt square meter. Similarly, in respect of 'Barani Avval' touching state highway `800/- per square meter and 'Gair Mumkin Abadi' touching state highway `1,000/- per square meter and touching the link road `800/- per square meter. Therefore, in respect of certain categories of land the Collector Land Acquisition has determined the market value of the acquired land on higher side as compared to `700/- per square meter assessed by reference Court below.
4. The complaint, therefore, is that the Court below could have not assessed the market value of the acquired land on lesser side to the one assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector. The awards impugned in these appeals have, therefore, been sought to be ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:18:28 :::HCHP 9 quashed and set aside and the compensation has been sought to be awarded taking into consideration the .
highest market value of the acquired land assessed by the Collector, irrespective of its kind and nature.
5. Now, if coming to the factual matrix, land of measuring 15-99-18 hectares of the petitioners situate in village Katohar Khurd, Tehsil Amb, District Una has been rt acquired for the public purpose namely construction of railway line from Nangal Dam to Talwara. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 25.02.2005 followed by the Notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 23.06.2005. As a sequel thereto, objections were called from the petitioners and on completion of all codal formalities the Land Acquisition Collector has determined the market value of the land as depicted in the chart supra. Now, if coming to the details and other particulars of the acquired land of each claimant-
petitioner. The same is tabulated here as under:
Sr. No. Number of Khewat/Khatauni Khasra number Acquired land appeal No. (square mtrs.)
1. 24 of 2010 Khewat No. 77, 506/2, 2581/1, 0-79-57 Khatauni No. 182 & 2583/2 & 2587 183
2. 25 of 2010 Khewat No. 18, 505/2, 2580/2, 0-67-81 376min, Khatauni 2582/3, 2584/1 & No. 184, 766min. 2585/2 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:18:28 :::HCHP 10
3. 70 of 2010 Khewat No. 77, 506/2, 2581/1, 0-79-57 Khatauni No. 182 2583/2 & 2587 and 183.
4. 71 of 2010 Khewat No. 187 496/1, 503, 504/2, 5-96-16 .
Khatauni No. 415, 2621, 2629 and 421 and 422 2630
5. 72 of 2010 Khewat No. 1, 30/1, 2578/2, 2579/2 0-15-99 Khatauni No. 1.
6. 73 of 2010 Khewat No. 187 496/1, 503/2, 504/2, 5-88-16 Khatauni No. 2621, 2629 & 2630.
415min
7. 74 of 2010 Khewat No. 271min, 2628/1, 2631, 2-23-16 Khatauni No. 2632/2, 2634/2 & 614min 2812/1
8. 75 of 2010 Khewat No. 49, 227min, 340min, 0-21-57 Khatauni No. 3214/3073/428min, of 141min 490min & 499min
9. 76 of 2010 Khewat No. 211, 25/2, 26/2, & 27/1 0-28-93 Khatauni No. 417
10. 77 of 2010 Khewat No. 47, 395/2, 425, 427, 426 1-38-47 Khatauni No. 136 & 491/2
11. 78 of 2010 rt Khewat No. 18 & 502, 2580/2, 2582/3, 0-67-81 376min Khatauni 2584/1 & 2585/2 No. 184 and 766min
6. The petitioners-claimants feeling aggrieved by the determination of the market value of the acquired land on the basis of its kind and nature and not at the flat rates, irrespective of its nature and category had preferred references under Section 18 of the Act. The references so preferred were forwarded to the Court of learned District Judge, Una by the Land Acquisition Collector for answering the same. The petitioners-
claimants have come forward with the version that the market value of the land is not less than `40,00,000/-
(`2,00,000/- per marla) per kanal. In order to substantiate their claim, it was urged that in the vicinity where the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:18:28 :::HCHP 11 acquired land situate has an industrial area, a steel plant, a Unit known as Him Cylinder, a sub-station, a transmission .
division of H.P.S.E.B and a medical college. Also that, that the acquisition of the land has caused severance of their holdings and the value of the remaining land has of diminished after acquisition.
7. The respondents, however, have contested rt the claim of the petitioners on the grounds inter-alia that adequate and sufficient compensation has been awarded to the petitioner and as such they have not approached this Court with clean hands. On merits, it is urged that the kind of land is Khartair and Banjar Kadim on the spot and in the revenue record also. Abadies of the village is also far away i.e. at a distance of three kilometers from the spot. The Sub-Divisional headquarter i.e. Amb is located at a distance of three kilometers therefrom. Also that, as per the spot situation, the acquired land was not fit for commercial purposes, therefore, it was denied that its market value is `2,00,000/-
per marla (`40,00,000/- per kanal).
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:18:28 :::HCHP 128. Respondent No. 3 has also contested all the claim petitions on the similar grounds. Further that the .
petitioners are estopped from filing the same because they had not raised any objection at the time of inquiry conducted by the Land Acquisition Collector under of Section 9(3) of the Act. The acquired land, according to respondent No. 3 is situated on the river bed and in water logged area.
rt
9. The petitioners had also filed rejoinders reiterating their stand in the reference petitions they filed.
10. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the issues though identical, however, were separately framed in the references.
1. Whether the compensation assessed by the LAC Una is inadequate as alleged? OPP
2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled to enhanced compensation, if so, to what amount? OPP
3. Relief.
11. Since all the references were qua the acquired land situate in village Katohar Khurd, therefore, were consolidated with reference petition No. 9 of 2008 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:18:28 :::HCHP 13 titled Vidya Sagar V. The Land Acquisition Collector. The evidence was also recorded in this reference petition, .
however, for the sake of convenience, learned reference Court has placed photocopies on the record of other reference petitions.
of
12. The petitioners during the course of trial had examined three witnesses in all and also placed reliance rt on Ext. P-1 to Ext. P-26 and also on the sale deed Ext. PW-
1/A. On the other hand, respondents have examined Sh.
Rajinder Prasad as RW-1 and also tendered in evidence the copy of annual average sale price of village Katohar Khurd Ext. RW-1/B and also the list Ext. RW-1/A qua the market rates of the land situated in Mohal Katohar Khurd, determined by the District Collector, Una.
13. On appreciation of the evidence available on record, learned reference Court after taking into consideration the vertical and horizontal classification of the acquired land made by the Land Acquisition Collector while assessing its market value has arrived at a conclusion that the mean thereof i.e. Rs. 700/- per square meter would be just and reasonable market value of the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:18:28 :::HCHP 14 acquired land. Therefore, as noticed, at the out set, the petitioners have been awarded compensation at the flat .
rate i.e. @ `700/- per square meter (`2,68,000/- per kanal), irrespective of its category and class.
14. Mr. H.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel has of vehemently argued that the awards under challenge in these appeals are neither legally nor factually rt sustainable, as according to him the market value of the acquired land assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector could have not been assessed by the reference Court below. On the other hand, Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate learned counsel representing respondent No. 3 has urged that the petitioners have already been awarded just and reasonable compensation by the reference Court below.
The impugned awards, according to Mr. Mahajan have been passed on the basis of the evidence available on record and on appreciation thereof in its right perspective.
15. On going through the entire record and analyzing the rival submissions, following common points arise for determination in these appeals:
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:18:28 :::HCHP 151. Whether the reference Court has erred in law in determining market value of all kinds of .
acquired land @ `700/- per square meter as against the market value thereof determined by the Land Acquisition Collector though at different rates on the basis of its classification, however, at higher rates also i.e. `1,000/- and of `800/- per square meter, which rates could have not been reduced?
2. Whether the market value of the acquired rt land is to be determined at flat rates, irrespective of its nature and category and that such rate could be `1,000/- per square meter, the highest rate assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector qua 'Chahi Avval', land touching the state highway?
3. Final order.
Points No. 1 and 216. Both these points are inter-linked and inter-
connected hence to be taken up together for consideration to avoid the conflicting findings and also the repetition of evidence.
17. There is no dispute so as to the land belonging to the petitioners-claimants situate in village Katohar Khurd, Tehsil Amb, District Una has been acquired ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:18:28 :::HCHP 16 for construction of railway line from Nangal Dam to Talwara. There is again no dispute qua observance of all .
codal formalities by the Land Acquisition Collector during the course of proceedings and before pronouncement of award. However, the only dispute is qua the market of value of the land acquired as assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector and also the learned reference Court below.
rt
18. As already discussed, the Land Acquisition Collector has determined different rates qua different kind of land. The reference Court below while arriving at a conclusion that the acquisition is for the public purpose namely construction of railway line, no distinction could have been made viz-a-viz cultivable and non-cultivable land while determining its market value in view of its comparative utility to remain as it is irrespective of its category. Learned reference Court has also placed reliance to substantiate this part of the findings so recorded with the help of law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in L.A.C Solan and another V. Bhoop Ram along with its connected matters, 1997(2) Sim.L.C. ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:18:28 :::HCHP 17 229 and also that of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 1998(2) All India Land Acquisition Act LACC(1) SC. The findings so .
recorded by learned reference Court below are absolutely legal and valid as it is well established at this stage that when the land is acquired for a public purpose of namely construction of road or for that matter construction of railway line as in these appeals, its market rt value should be determined at flat rates, irrespective of its nature and category. Support in this regard can be drawn from the judgment of this Court in Executive Engineer V. Dila Ram, Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 1007. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:
"12. The Collector has awarded compensation of 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 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:18:28 :::HCHP 18 significance. The acquired land is to be used/developed as a single unit for the .
construction of road. In H.P. Housing Board 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 of Collector. In the High Court the persons interested limited their claim for enhancement of compensation to Rs. 400/- rt per square meter irrespective of classification. On those facts, a learned single Judge of this court has held that when the land is being developed for constructing housing colony, the classification completely looses significance and awarded compensation on 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 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:18:28 :::HCHP 19 road or at some distance therefrom. In the present case also, the acquired land is to be .
used/developed for the construction of the road as a single unit and therefore, classification of the land looses significance.
In these circumstances, the persons interested are entitled to compensation at of 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 rt than the market value assessed by learned District Judge."
19. A Division Bench of this Court in Bhoop Ram's case supra qua this aspect of the matter has also held as under:
"11........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 square meter or Rs. 30,000 per Bigha should be awarded ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:18:28 :::HCHP 20 irrespective of the classification of the acquired land........"
.
20. The determination as `700/- per square meter, the market value of the acquired land, however, is not legally sustainable for the reason that the Land Acquisition Collector has determined the market value of of the land @ `1,000/- and `800/- per square meter, of course on vertical rt and horizontal classification of the acquired land i.e. on the basis of its nature and kind on the one hand, proximity from the road i.e. State highway or link road on the other and the one not touching the State highway or link road, had awarded the compensation, which the reference Court could have also not reduced to `700/- per square meter. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana V. Gurcharan Singh and another, AIR 1996, Supreme Court 106 on finding that the Collector has determined the market value of the acquired land on higher side has held as under:
"4. In this case, the Collector applied more than 8 years multiplier and awarded compensation. The High Court also has not adverted to this aspect of the matter. The ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:18:28 :::HCHP 21 High Court committed error of law in further enhancing the compensation. Considered .
from this perspective, since we cannot interfere with the award of the Collector, though the Collector had committed palpable error of law in separately awarding the compensation to the land as well as fruit of bearing trees, it is an offer which cannot be disturbed because of S. 25 of the Act. The rate of compensation should have been less rt than what the Collector has awarded, we cannot reduce the amount less than the amount offered by the Collector, yet we have to hold that the Collector, Civil Court and the High Court should have applied 8 years multiplier and determined the compensation......"
21. Similar is the ratio of the judgment again that of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Chand V. Union of India, AIR 2010 Supreme Court 170. This judgment reads as follows:
"23......Section 25 provides that the amount of compensation awarded by a reference court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under section 11. We fail to see how the said section has any ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:18:28 :::HCHP 22 relevance in regard to determination of market value as contrasted from award of .
compensation. If the sale deeds relied on by the respondents showed a particular market value, they cannot be ignored merely because the Collector had awarded compensation at a higher rate in regard to of the acquired land. All the section 25 requires is that courts should not award an amount which is less than what is awarded by the rt Land Acquisition Collector, even if the evidence may show a lesser market value. So, the bar under section 25 of the LA Act is not in regard to determination of a market value, which is less than what was awarded by the LAO. The bar is only upon the reference court (or any higher court) reducing the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector....."
22. Therefore, in the judgment supra, the Apex Court has settled the principle that the compensation awarded by the Collector in respect of the acquired land cannot be reduced by the reference Court and even by the High Court and for that matter by the Hon'ble Apex Court also. When the Collector has assessed the market ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:18:28 :::HCHP 23 value of the acquired land such as 'Chahi Avval', Barani Avval' and 'Gair Mumkin Abadi' at a higher rate i.e. .
`1,000/-, of course keeping in mind its proximity from the State highway or link road, the market value of such land determined by the Land Acquisition Collector and the of compensation awarded is certainly on higher side as compared to the one awarded by the reference Court at rt flat rates i.e. `700/- per square. It is well settled at this stage that when the land is acquired for one public purpose as in the present case, i.e. construction of railway line, distinction between cultivable and non-cultivable or for that matter its proximity from the State highway or link road is not legally permissible.
23. The classification of the acquired land as disclosed from the record is 'Chahi Avval, 'Barani Avval' 'Banjar Kadim, 'Khadkhan', 'Kharatair', 'Gair Mumkin Abadi' and 'Sehan Ahata' etc. etc. The higher rates assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector are qua 'Chahi Avval' and 'Gair Mumkin Abadi' lands, touching State highway i.e. `1,000/- per square meter followed by 'Barani Avval' and 'Banjar Kadim' and 'Gair Mumkin ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:18:28 :::HCHP 24 Abadi', touching State highway i.e. `800/- per square meter. Even the market value of the 'Chahi Avval', 'Gair .
Mumkin Abadi and 'Sehan Ahata' touching the link road has also been determined @ `800/- per square meter.
When the classification of the acquired land and its of proximity from the State highway or link road has nothing to do with determination of its market value and as the rt Land Acquisition Collector has determined `1,000/- per square meter, the rate of 'Chahi Avval' land touching the State highway, all kind of land should have been assessed @ `1,000/- per square meter for the purpose of assessment of its market value. Learned reference Court has to the contrary assessed the market value of all kind of acquired land @ `700/- per square meter by taking mean of the rates determined by the Land Acquisition Collector of different category of land and keeping in mind its proximity from the State highway or link road, which in view of the legal and factual position discussed hereinabove is not legally sustainable. The market value of the acquired land, therefore, is assessed @ `1,000/- per square meter (i.e. `3,80,000/- per kanal) and the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:18:28 :::HCHP 25 compensation enhanced accordingly. The petitioners-
claimants shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits i.e. .
solatium @ 30% on the market value of the acquired land as assessed above, additional charges @ 12% per annum on the enhanced amount of market value of the of acquired land and also the interest.
24. All the appeals as well as counter-claims rt stand disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Copy of this judgment duly authenticated be placed on the record of each of the connected appeals.
May 9, 2016 (Dharam Chand Chaudhary)
(naveen) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:18:28 :::HCHP