Uttarakhand High Court
Indo Tibetan Border Police vs M/S Kherapathvanijya Ltd on 15 October, 2025
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
First Appeal No. 33 of 2023
Indo Tibetan Border Police
Force Academy, Mussoorie,
Dehradun. ..................... Appellant.
Versus
M/s KherapathVanijya Ltd.
and others. ...............Respondents
With
First Appeal No. 34 of 2023
Indo Tibetan Border Police
Force Academy, Mussoorie,
Dehradun. ..................... Appellant.
Versus
M/s Sing Ram Commercial Ltd.
and others. ...............Respondents
With
First Appeal No. 35 of 2023
Indo Tibetan Border Police
Force Academy, Mussoorie,
Dehradun. ..................... Appellant.
Versus
Pinki Dhawan and
and others. ...............Respondents
Present:
Mr. V.K. Kapruwan, learned Standing Counsel for Union of India / appellant.
Mr.Tarun Lakhera and Mr. Tarun Mohan, learned Brief Holders for the State.
Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Kanti Ram Sharma, learned counsel
for the private respondents.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. All these First Appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 08.12.2017 passed by the IIIrd Addl. District Judge, Dehradun.
22. Brief facts of the case are that land acquisition proceeding was initiated under the Land Acquisition Act by issuing Section 4 Notification for acquiring land on 08.09.1999 followed by Section 6 Notification dated 04.01.2001. In this proceeding possession of land under acquisition was taken on 20.02.2002. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (in short SLAO) determined the rates on the basis of exemplar sale deed as well as suitability and location of land after carrying out site inspectionon07.01.2002. In total, 4 sale deeds were obtained from the office of Sub Registrar, as mentioned at serial no. 1, 2, 3 and 4 in Schedule II and sale deed mentioned at serial no. 2 in Schedule II was treated to be exemplar one. SLAO declared the Award on 09.12.2002 on perusal of which it reveals that at the time of determination of compensation, no evidence or document were placed before the SLAO by the respondents / claimants.
3. Respondents/claimants being aggrieved with the determination of rate of compensation of land by the SLAO, approach to Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In paragraph 9 and 10 (ba) of the reference application, the claimants give reference of certain sale deeds, which they purchased in the from 1993 to 1995. It is also contended in the reference application that the land under acquisition is very suitable for future prospects. The averments as pleaded in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the reference application, are being extracted hereinbelow:
"9. That on 10-02-1995, Shri Y.P.S. Jolly sold an area of 0.127 acre of land, which forms part of the notified/acquired land, belonging to M/s. Sinhram Commercial Ltd., through a registered sale deed for a consideration of Rs. 60,000/-, according to which the rate per bigha comes to Rs. 89,764/-. In addition to 3 the said sale consideration, a stamp duty of Rs. 11,000/- was paid and other registration expenses were also incurred. Hence, by all means, the value of the acquired land in February 1995 was not less than Rs. 1,00,000/- per bigha. It is a matter of common knowledge that from the year 1995 up to the date of notification under Section 4, i.e., 08-09-1999, in the span of about four and a half years, the value of the land increased manifold. Therefore, the amount claimed by the applicant is very much on the lower side.
10. That the Land Acquisition Officer, while determining the amount of compensation, has erred in not considering the following material facts:
(a) That the land of the applicant has been acquired for a particular purpose, and other lands are available nearby for the same purpose, whereas the applicant's land is very valuable and possesses immense potential value.
(b) That the applicant had purchased the aforesaid 'land, measuring 0.505 acre, which is situated adjoining the road and beyond which lies the land of M/s. Sinhram Commercial Ltd. The said land was purchased by the applicant in the year 1993 for a consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs), with stamp duty of Rs. 29,000/- and other expenses paid separately by cheque. Thereafter, the value of the surrounding lands proposed to be acquired increased rapidly and manifold.
(c) That the land proposed to be acquired is situated adjacent to a road, and further, all facilities such as 4 electricity, water, and telephone are available, along with ample recreational amenities for tourists.
(d) That near and adjoining the land proposed to be acquired, there exists a large establishment of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (I.T.B.P.), wherein buildings have been constructed and thousands of persons reside, and the said property has been used for purposes of the Government of India since long, due to which the value of the surrounding lands has considerably increased.
(e) That near the said land, the Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority (M.D.D.A.) has constructed a lake, where lakhs of tourists visit every year. This site can be reached from the applicant's land by motor road within a short time. The Gandhi Chowk is situated at a distance of approximately one kilometre from the applicant's land, and about 25-30 trees are located on the roadside. Consequently, commercial activities around the area have increased substantially, and thus all the surrounding lands have become commercial in nature, being used for commercial purposes and possessing great potential.
(f) That the aforesaid land falls within the municipal limits of the Municipality of Mussoorie, and the Municipal Board, Mussoorie, has been levying taxes on this land, which the applicant has been regularly paying from time to time.
(g) That after the publication of the notification under Section 4 in the Gazette dated 08-09-1999, and before the publication of the notification under Section 6 dated 04-01-2001, the State of Uttar 5 Pradesh was bifurcated, and the above-mentioned land came within the territory of the State of Uttaranchal. The aforesaid land is situated in District Dehradun, which has been declared as the capital of the State of Uttaranchal, due to which the pressure on land throughout the district, particularly in Mussoorie the Queen of Hills, has increased considerably. Consequently, the construction of buildings and commercial complexes has taken place rapidly, and commercial activities have expanded significantly.
(h) That as a result of the area becoming the capital, all government offices have become concentrated in District Dehradun, and the demand for land has increased manifold, making the availability of land extremely difficult. Consequently, land prices have skyrocketed. It is also a well-known fact, and not a hidden one, that in sale deeds, the value of the land is shown based on the circle rate for stamp duty purposes, whereas in reality, the actual market value of the land is many times higher than the declared value. In most land transactions, a substantial portion of the consideration remains unrecorded, in order to evade the payment of capital gains tax under the Income Tax Act and to utilize unaccounted (black) money.
(i) That the aforesaid land is situated in Mussoorie town. The crowd and congestion in Mussoorie have increased to such an extent that there is neither sufficient space for vehicle parking nor affordable accommodation for visitors, causing great inconvenience to tourists. Since the said land is 6 adjoining Mussoorie, it is highly attractive for tourists and eminently suitable for purposes of recreation, lodging, and parking facilities.
(j) That the beauty of this land is truly captivating.
It is surrounded on three sides by hills, and on one side there is a charming view of the Doon Valley, with lofty mountains, tall trees, and greenery all around. Nearby are natural waterfalls, and also the Bhatta Fall picnic spot and a lake, all situated at a distance of about 6-7 kilometres from the applicant's land. The site is easily accessible by motor road within a short time. For all these reasons, the land possesses every potential to be developed as an attraction for tourists. The market value of the land proposed to be acquired, at the time of the notification under Section 4 and immediately thereafter, rose exponentially owing to the unexpected event of the formation of the State of Uttaranchal and the declaration of Dehradun as its capital. Under no circumstance could the value of the land at the time of the Section 4 notification have been less than 215,00,000 (fifteen lakh) per bigha, and thereafter it increased considerably.
(k) That throughout the State of Uttaranchal, the Government is giving great encouragement to the cultivation and use of medicinal herbs. The entire region abounds in naturally growing medicinal plants, and the land can be profitably utilized for their cultivation and development, yielding substantial and continuous income. At present, herbal medicines are being promoted worldwide.
7(l) That the land in question is surrounded by tall trees and greenery all around, and the natural beauty of the area is such that it gives the impression of heaven having descended upon the earth.
(a) That the applicant had concentrated all his attention on developing this land for commercial and recreational purposes, by constructing beautiful cottages for attracting tourists, creating parking areas and food facilities, and providing parks and play areas for children; however, all such plans and projects of the applicant have been completely frustrated due to the acquisition of the said land.
(b) That the applicant does not possess any other land in the entire State of Uttaranchal where he could carry out business or commercial activities. The said land was purchased by the applicant specifically for commercial purposes."
4. Objections to the Reference Application was also filed and paragraph 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the objections are being extracted herein below:
"5. That the statement at paragraph/serial number 5 of the plaint is wholly incorrect and is denied. The land so acquired is hilly and steeply sloping and is contiguous to the land of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Academy, Mussoorie, and there is no habitation in the vicinity for a considerable distance. Even on site inspection the land was not found to possess residential or commercial potential. Further, the only access to the said land is via the main gate of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police establishment,which is a zone completely prohibited for the general public.
86. That the statement at paragraphs/serial numbers 6 and 7 of the plaint as set out is wholly incorrect and is denied. It is submitted that the Special Land Acquisition Officer did not wrongly select the sale deeds numbered 1 and 2; prior to selecting sale deeds numbered 1 and 2 a site inspection was undertaken and, since the acquired land and the lands sold in the said sale deeds were similar in condition and utility, Sale, Deed No. 2 was selected as the representative sale deed for the purpose of determining the rate of the acquired land, which selection is just and equitable in all respects.
7. That the statement at paragraph/serial number 8 of the plaint as worded is incorrect and is denied. It is incorrect to state that the plaintiff was not given an opportunity to produce evidence and to be heard. The plaintiff was in fact given adequate time under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, and although the plaintiff submitted objections under Section 9, no evidence or documents were produced along with those objections; instead, the plaintiff merely, on conjecture, demanded a land price of Rs. 15,00,000/- per bigha, which demand is unreasonable and is not acceptable.
x x x x
9. That the statement made in paragraph number 10 and its sub-paragraphs (a, b, c, d, ya, ra, la, va, ha, ța, dha, da, ka, kha, ga, gha, da, cha, da and cha) of the plaint is incorrect and is hereby denied. It is true that there exists a large establishment of the Indo- Tibetan Border Police (I.T.B.P.) near the land proposed to be acquired; however, the statement that 9 thousands of people reside therein is false and denied. In fact, the said establishment houses only the trainee personnel of the I.T.B.P. during their training period, and the entire area is completely restricted for entry of any outsider. Moreover, the only access to the acquired land passes through this establishment itself. The statement of the plaintiffs that the Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority (M.D.D.A.) has constructed a Mussoorie Tourist Lake near this land, due to which the acquired land has become commercial in nature, is also incorrect and denied. The actual position is that three boundaries of the acquired land adjoin the land of the I.T.B.P., while on the fourth side there is a steep slope/deep gorge, with no approach road leading to the land. As regards the Mussoorie Lake, it is situated at a distance of approximately 15 kilometres from the said land."
5. Thereafter, Reference Court framed four issues for determination, which are as follows:
"1. Whether the compensation awarded to the applicants in respect of the land acquired in connection with the headquarters of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police at Mussoorie has been inadequately determined; if so, what is its effect?
2. Whether, on the grounds stated in the compensation application, the compensation claimed by the applicants is liable to be accepted; if so, what is its effect?
3. Whether the present reference, as it has been submitted, is not maintainable?
4. Whether the applicants are entitled to any other relief?"10
6. Mr. V.K.Kaparwan learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Reference Court decided Issue no. 1 and 2 in favour of the claimants without any discussion and Issue no. 4 which pertains to relief has been dealt with in paragraph 17 of the order under challenge without any discussion by giving reference of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhupendra Singh and others Vs. Avas Vikas Parishad, Lucknow and others (2006) 1 LSC 589 and in paragraph 18, the Reference Court determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per sq. meter.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Reference Court in fact have not gone through with the reasons, as given by the SLAO in the award and not only this even the objections of the Collector to the reference application has not been dealt with in a proper manner and in a very cursory manner the Reference Court allowed the Reference Application by increasing the amount of compensation without any substance and material. He further submits that the SLAO determined the rates on the basis of sale deeds collected from the office of Sub Registrar, Mussoorie and took one of the sale deeds mentioned at serial no. 2 in Schedule II as exemplar one. He further submits that the Reference Court while allowing the Reference Application has not appreciated this aspect that the acquisition notification was issued in the year 1999 and possession was taken on 2002 and the Reference Court without any substance and material allowed the Reference Application by the order impugned from which easily an inference can be drawn that the Reference Court was under the impression of the prevailing rate exist in the year of 2017 when the order impugned was passed.
118. On the other side, Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Sr. Advocate for the claimants submits that the SLAO while determining the compensation have not gone through with the circle rate and therefore, the Reference Court rightly allowed the Reference Application by fixing rate of compensation on the basis of prevailing circle rate, which was prevailing at the time of issuance of Section 4 Notification. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Vs. Vincent Daniel and others 2025 (7) SCC 798, by giving reference of paragraph 42 and 43 which are being extracted herein below:
"42. In the absence of any material to support the same, we cannot accept the argument advanced by the appellant, Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation, that this circle rate is not the baseline or floor rate, and is too high. The authorities concerned should fix circle rates scientifically and in accordance with the law. It is their responsibility to ensure that circle rates are neither inflated nor disproportionately low. When the citizens are required to pay stamp duty on the notified circle rate, the public authorities, including State Development Corporations acquiring land from private individuals, must adhere to the same. We do not appreciate the appellant, Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation complaining about the circle rate fixed by the State Government. If the circle rate is inflated or does not reflect the true market value, it is incumbent upon the State Government to take corrective steps. The State Government or the Development Corporation under the State Government cannot complain that they have been compelled to acquire land at the circle rate fixed by the State.12
43. Thus, while we disagree with the ratio and the reasoning of the High Court, albeit for the reasons and findings recorded above, we uphold the computation in the award passed by the Commissioner directing payment of compensation on the basis of the circle rate. The appeals filed by the appellant, Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation, are accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs."
9. After gone through with the aforesaid judgment as relied upon by Mr. V.K. Kohli however the same does not support his for the simple reason that the SLAO while determine the rate of compensation considered four sale deeds, obtained from the office of Sub Registrar, Mussoorie. Not only this, even the suitability and location of land was also examined by the SLAO after visiting the site. Not only this, even the award of the SLAO reveals that claimants have not raised any objection.
10. In First Appeal No. 35 of 2023, the claimants have enclosed copy of their sale deed of land measuring 0.4 Acre and market rate as mentioned therein is Rs. One Lakh, therefore, as per this calculation, the rate of land of claimants comes to approximately Rs. 50,000/- per bigha.
11. Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Sr. Advocate submits that sale deed was of 1992 and notification under Section 4 was issued in the year 1999 and at that time, rate of land was increased tremendously.
12. Mr. Tarun Lakhera, learned Brief Holder for the State, adopted the arguments as advanced by Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Sr. Advocate . In addition to this, Mr. Tarun Lakhera, submits that Government prescribed the circle rate and in such an eventuality instead of taking into consideration the exemplar sale deed circle rate has to be taken in to consideration.
1313. Mr. V.K. Kapruwan, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the circle rate prevailing at the time of publication of Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act in the Official Gazette was Rs. 250 per sq. m beyond 150 metres, within 50 meters Rs. 500 per sq. m. and Rs. 375 from 50 metre to 150 metre and submits that if the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents are accepted even then the circle rate, prevailing at the time of publication of notification under Section 4 was Rs. 250 sq. m.
14. On the next date Mr. Kaparwan apprise to this court the exact location of the land.
15. Put up this matter on 30.10.2025 on top of board.
(Rakesh Thapliyal,J.) 15.10.2025 SKS 14