Himachal Pradesh High Court
The State Of Himachal Pradesh And ... vs Sawrup Singh on 21 December, 2019
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RFA No.351 of 2011 along with RFA
.
Nos.304, 307, 308 of 2011, RFA No. 111
of 2009, RFA Nos. 337, 345, 346, 347,
348, 349, 350, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362
and 364 of 2011.
Date of decision: 21st December, 2019.
1. RFA No. 351 of 2011.
The State of Himachal Pradesh and another .....Appellants.
Versus
Sawrup Singh ......Respondent.
2. RFA No. 304 of 2011.
The State of Himachal Pradesh and another .....Appellants.
Versus
Purshotam Chand ......Respondent.
3. RFA No.307 of 2011.
The State of Himachal Pradesh and another .....Appellants.
Versus
Prittam Chand ......Respondent.
4. RFA No. 308 of 2011.
The State of Himachal Pradesh and another .....Appellants.
Versus
Uttam Chand ......Respondent.
5. RFA No.111 of 2009.
The State of Himachal Pradesh and another .....Appellants.
Versus
::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 20:27:11 :::HCHP
2
Harbhagwant Singh ......Respondent.
.
6. RFA No. 337 of 2011.
The State of Himachal Pradesh and another .....Appellants.
Versus
Dhian Singh and others ......Respondents.
7. RFA No. 345 of 2011.
The State of Himachal Pradesh and another .....Appellants.
Versus
Desh Raj ......Respondent.
8. RFA No. 346 of 2011.
The State of Himachal Pradesh and another .....Appellants.
Versus
Mulakh Raj and others ......Respondents.
9. RFA No.347 of 2011.
The State of Himachal Pradesh and another .....Appellants.
Versus
Subhash Chand and others ......Respondents.
10. RFA No. 348 of 2011.
The State of Himachal Pradesh and another .....Appellants.
Versus
Kartar Singh and others ......Respondents.
11. RFA No. 349 of 2011.
The State of Himachal Pradesh and another .....Appellants.
Versus
::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 20:27:11 :::HCHP
3
Kishan Chand and others ......Respondents.
12. RFA No. 350 of 2011.
.
The State of Himachal Pradesh and another .....Appellants.
Versus
Sandhaya Devi ......Respondent.
13. RFA No. 358 of 2011.
The State of Himachal Pradesh and another .....Appellants.
Versus
Ashok Kumar and others
r ......Respondents.
14. RFA No. 359 of 2011.
The State of Himachal Pradesh and another .....Appellants.
Versus
Dittu alias Ratto (deceased)
through LRs Ashok Kumar and others ......Respondents.
15. RFA No. 360 of 2011.
The State of Himachal Pradesh and another .....Appellants.
Versus
Sandeep Kumar ......Respondent.
16. RFA No. 361 of 2011.
The State of Himachal Pradesh and another .....Appellants.
Versus
Nand Lal ......Respondent.
17. RFA No. 362 of 2011.
The State of Himachal Pradesh and another .....Appellants.
Versus
::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 20:27:11 :::HCHP
4
Asha Devi ......Respondent.
18. RFA No. 364 of 2011.
.
The State of Himachal Pradesh and another .....Appellants.
Versus
Ishwar Dass ......Respondent.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1. No
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate
General with Mr. Desh Raj Thakur,
r Additional Advocate General, Ms.
Svaneel Jaswal and Mr. Narender
Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocate
Generals, in all the appeals.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate, in
all the appeals.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)
Learned counsel for the respondent(s) has filed memos of appearance in RFA Nos. 347, 359, 360 and 362 of 2011 which are ordered to be taken on record.
2. All these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as they relate to the acquisition of land for extension of airport at Gaggal, District Kangra, H.P.
3. The issuance of various notifications under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') and thereafter passing 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 20:27:11 :::HCHP 5 of the award by the Land Acquisition Collector, Kangra, are not in dispute. The appellants issued notification under Sections 4 and .
17 of the Act on 28.06.1999 and thereafter on 30.12.1999 under Sections 6, 7 and 17 of the Act seeking acquisition of the land of the respondents at Mohal Rachhialu, Mauza Bandi, Mohal Sanauran, Mauza Dhugiari, Tehsil and District Kangra, H.P. The Land Acquisition Collector announced his award(s) on 07.09.2000
4.
r to and 16.11.2000 whereby he awarded different rates for different kinds of lands.
The respondents filed references under Section 18 of the Act, which were duly allowed by the learned Court below by awarding a uniform rate of Rs.750/- per square metre vide award(s) dated 29.09.2008, 20.03.2010, 22.05.2010, 02.06.2010 and 31.12.2010.
5. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellants filed the appeals questioning the awards. One batch of the said appeals came to be allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.11.2016 passed in RFA No.111 of 2009, being the lead case, along with connected matters, titled as Sub Division Officer(Civil)-cum-Land Acquisition Collector versus Harbhagwant Singh. Whereas, another batch of appeals, the lead case whereof being RFA No. 112 of 2009, titled as The Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Kangra versus Harnam ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 20:27:11 :::HCHP 6 Singh, along with connected matters, came up before this Court and the same were dismissed by this Court on 24.07.2017 by .
according the following reasons:
"4. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant has filed the instant appeals questioning the award primarily on the ground that the sale deed, Ext. PW4/A, of an area of ½ Marla even in the same revenue estate could not have been cited as an exemplar while calculating the compensation for a larger area of land. In addition to, it is argued that exemplar, Ext. PW4/A, could not have been otherwise made basis for the enhanced compensation particularly when the land involved therein was admittedly sold after notification under Section 4 of the Act had been issued.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the cases carefully.
6. It is not in dispute that save and except, the exemplar, Ext. PW4/A, there is no other sale deed available on record, which pertains to the land in question and, therefore, no fault can be found with the court when in absence of exemplar of large piece of land. This issue is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Atma Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2008) 2 SCC 568. It is apt to reproduce paras 7 and 8 of the judgment, which reads thus:
"7.The claimant-appellants (landowners) had filed copies of four sale deeds which are Exs. P-7, P-8, P-9 and P-10. In fact, Ex. P-7 is a copy ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 20:27:11 :::HCHP 7 of a sale deed by which Laxman Singh bought some land in village Chhapra on 28.7.1982, which itself became subject matter of .
acquisition. Laxman Singh had deposed that he had bought the land for construction of shops. All these four sale deeds related to sale transactions prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act on 9.2.1983. The High Court excluded Ex.P-8 from consideration as it related to a very small piece of land measuring 19 marlas only. The average price of the three sale deeds viz. Ex. P-7, P-9 and P-10 came to little more than Rs.1,20,000/-
per acre. Apart from these three sale deeds, no other exemplars were filed either by the State of Haryana or by the landowners. The High Court accepted the price exhibited by the aforesaid three sale transactions which came to little more than Rs.1,20,000/- per acre. It thus recorded a finding that the market value of the land was Rs.1,20,000/- per acre. In our opinion, there being no other documentary evidence, the view taken by the High Court that the market value of the land was Rs.1,20,000/- per acre is perfectly correct and calls for no interference.
8. Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel for the sugar mill has submitted that the exemplars filed by the appellants were of very small pieces of land and, therefore, they are not safe guide to determine the market value of the land. It may be mentioned here that while determining the market value, the potentiality of the land acquired has also to be taken into consideration. The appellants have led evidence to show that the acquired land had the potentiality to be used for commercial, industrial and residential purposes. PW.1 Rakesh Kumar had prepared a site plan which showed that the acquired land was adjacent to the abadi of Shahabad and abutted the Shahabad-Ladwa Road. The site plan also shows that there existed rice shellers, cold storage, shops, godowns, a college and houses etc. on both sides of Shahabad-Ladwa Road.::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 20:27:11 :::HCHP 8
PW.2 Baldev Singh was Patwari of village Chhapra in the year 1983. He deposed that all the four villages viz. Kankar Shahbad, Chhapra, .
Jandheri and Jhambara are adjacent to each other and the acquired land abutted the Shahabad- Ladwa Road. He further deposed that the acquired land was 2 kilometer from G.T. Road and there were buildings, godowns, a cinema hall, factories on both sides of the Shahabad-Ladwa Road. Therefore, there can be no manner of doubt that the acquired land had the potentiality for being used for commercial, industrial and residential purposes and there was fair possibility of increase in its market value in the near future. Therefore, the fact that the exemplars filed by the appellants were of the small pieces of land could not be a r ground to discard them specially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available. They could, therefore, be used as a safe guide for determining the market value of the land."
7. Insofar as the contention of the appellant that the sale deed, which was executed after notification under Section 4 of the Act, could not form basis of awarding the compensation is concerned, as observed above, there is no other sale deed available on record, which pertains to the land under acquisition or in close proximity, therefore, in such circumstances, even post notification instances can be taken into account if they are very proximate, genuine and the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of resultant improvement in development prospects as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1988) 3 SCC 751.
::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 20:27:11 :::HCHP 98. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Major Jitendra Kumar and others, .
(1982) 2 SCC 382 had even approved the reliance of sale deed, which was three years later than the notification under Section 4 of the Act.
9. As regards the last contention of the appellant, exemplars of the small pieces of land could not be made basis of determining enhanced compensation, suffice it to say that the area, whether it is large or small, is required to be determined on the basis of individual holding and not by clubbing together the individual holdings, treating them as a large area, thereby differentiating them from similar land and applying a lower market value to such holdings. This was so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thakarsibhai Devjibhai vs. Executive Engineer, (2001) 9 SCC 584.
10. Apart from what has been observed hereinabove, it would be noticed that in terms of exemplar, Ext. PW4/A, the land measuring 30 square metres had been sold by one Giano Devi to Krishan and Madan Lal for a consideration of Rs.45,000/-, which works out to Rs.1500 per square metre. As against this amount, the learned could below has only awarded a sum of Rs.750/- per square metre and, therefore, I really do not find any reason for the appellant to be aggrieved.
11. Having said so, I find no merit in these appeals, which are dismissed accordingly, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed."
::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 20:27:11 :::HCHP 106. It is further not in dispute that the judgment passed .
by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in RFA No. 111 of 2009 along with connected matters was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No.22312-22329 of 2017 titled as 'Sawrup Singh etc. etc. versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another, decided on 11.09.2019 and the same was allowed in the following terms:
r "O R D E R
Leave granted.
After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties at some length, with broad consensus, we set aside the impugned order(s) passed by the High Court and permit the appellants to file application(s) for adducing additional evidence in the form of Sale Deed, if any, and also other evidence before the High Court, in which case the High Court shall consider the same in accordance with law and take fresh decision in the matter.
In view of the above, the appeals are allowed."
7. None of the parties has adduced any additional evidence and as regards the sale deeds already on records, this Court has also gone through the same in the judgment passed supra. Therefore, on the basis of and for the reasons stated in judgment rendered in RFA No. 112 of 2009, along with connected matters, which shall be read mutatis mutandis in these appeals, and has otherwise attained finality, all these appeals are ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 20:27:11 :::HCHP 11 dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. All pending applications stand disposed of.
.
21st December, 2019. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) (krt) Judge r to ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 20:27:11 :::HCHP