Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P. & Another vs Brij Pal Singh (Since Deceased) on 13 July, 2023
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA No.36 of 2015 Reserved on : 2nd June, 2023.
.
Date of Decision : 13th July, 2023
State of H.P. & Another ......Appellants
Versus
Brij Pal Singh (since deceased)
through LRs ......Respondents
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Ms. Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rohit Sharma and Ms. Ayushi Negi, Deputy Advocates General For the respondents : Mr. J.R. Sharma, Advocate Virender Singh, Judge Appellants have preferred the present appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the award, passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court'), dated 23.11.2012 in reference case No.4- J/2010/2006.
2. During the pendency of the appeal, before this Court, the sole respondent, has expired and vide order dated 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2023 20:34:46 :::CIS 230.9.2020, his legal representatives, were ordered to be brought on record.
.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present appeal, are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court.
4. By way of the award dated 23.11.2012, the learned trial Court has allowed the reference petition and awarded the following relief to the petitioner:-
r to "13. In view of my findings on the issues above, the petitioners are entitled to compensation at the rate of 7.5 lac per hectares. The applicants are also entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation under section 23(1-A) from the date of notification under section 4 upto the date of announcement of award dated 2.8.2004 by the LAC under section 11 of the Act.
Further the petitioners are entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% on account of compulsory acquisition of land on the enhanced amount of compensation.
Apart from this, the petitioners are entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum for one year from the date of announcement of award by LAC ie. 2.8.2004 and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the amount of compensation is deposited in the court. Memo of costs be prepared accordingly An authentic copy of this award be placed on the connected reference cases and an attested copy of this award be also sent to the Collector for ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2023 20:34:46 :::CIS 3 information and necessary action. The file after its due completion be consigned to the record room."
.
5. Against the said award, the present appeal has been preferred, before this Court on the grounds that the trial Court has not considered the fact that the land acquired by the department is of very inferior quality and having steep slopes, which requires heavy costs for its development. The market value of the land has been stated to be assessed on the higher side. There was no road facility to the acquired land; and no habitation was there.
6. The manner, in which the learned trial Court has assessed the market value of the acquired land, has also been assailed on the ground that the department has acquired very large chunk of land, whereas, value relied upon by the learned trial Court, is with regard to the sale deeds of the small piece of land measuring about 0-00-40 hectares.
7. In nut shell, the appellants have assailed the award on the ground that the evidence, so adduced by the parties, has not properly been considered and the market value of the land has not properly been assessed.
8. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the present appeal.
::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2023 20:34:46 :::CIS 49. It has fairly been conceded by the learned counsel representing the parties to the present appeal that the present .
matter is duly covered by the decision of this Court, as rendered in RFA No.953 of 2012, titled as Land Acquisition Collector & Another Versus Jatinder Singh.
10. The subject matter of the award, against which, the present appeal has been preferred, before this Court, is the land acquired for Shah Nehar, Project, Fatehpur, District Kangra, H.P., vide award No.53 dated 2.8.2004.
11. Perusal of the record shows that learned trial Court, vide award dated 23.11.2012, has decided, as many as, six reference petitions. Those reference petitions have been preferred against the award No.53, dated 2.8.2004.
12. Perusal of the record of the learned trial Court shows that vide this award, land situated in Mouza Riyal, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Kangra, was acquired for Shah Nehar Project.
As per the award, notification, under Section 4 of the Act, was issued on 8.5.2003.
13. Vide judgment dated 7.8.2013, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, has decided three appeals bearing RFA Nos.33, 34 & 38 of 2015, preferred against the award dated 23.11.2012, which is also subject matter of this appeal, by placing reliance on the decision of this Court in RFA No.953 of 2012, titled as ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2023 20:34:46 :::CIS 5 Land Acquisition Collector & Another Versus Jatinder Singh, decided on 1.6.2016.
.
14. Vide judgment dated 1.6.2016, this Court has decided a batch of petitions, lead case whereof is RFA No.953 of 2012, whereby, the appeals filed by the Land Acquisition Collector and Another, have been ordered to be dismissed.
15. Operative portion of the judgment rendered in RFA No.953 of 2012, is reproduced as under:-
33. As already discussed, the onus to prove and establish the real market value is always upon the claimants. Now significantly through his testimony, Satpal Singh (PW.1) has also proven on record various sale deeds. However, trial Court has taken into account three of them being Ex.PW.1/B, Ex.PW.1/C and Ex.PW.1/D, being prior to the initiation of the acquisition proceedings. These pertain to small chunks of land whereby land ad measuring 0-
00-40 HM was sold for consideration of `100/- per centare; 62 Centare for `5000/- and 0-01-01 HM for `10,000/-. These sale deeds pertain to the year 1997. They pertain to Tikka Rey and Tikka Tatwali. The Court below, by rightly applying the principle laid down in Haridwar Develiopment Authority Haridwar Versus Raghubir Singh, (2010) 11 SCC 581, carried out necessary deduction of 25% there upon. This was so done in view of the exemplar sale deeds pertaining to small parcel of land. Significantly there is neither any challenge to the execution of these sale deeds or genuineness thereof. They pertain to ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2023 20:34:46 :::CIS 6 the period prior to the commencement of the acquisition proceedings. It is also not the case of the parties that these sale deeds came to be executed .
only for the purpose of creating evidence in anticipation that the land in question would also be acquired. In fact, claimants had no inkling of the acquisition of their land and were taken by surprise with the commencement of the acquisition proceedings. Thus, by taking into account the average of these sale deeds, so proven on record, the value turned out to be `9.6 lacs, and by carrying deduction r of 25%, the Court below rightly determined the market value of the entire acquired land to be `7.20 lacs per hectare. It has come in the testimony of the witness examined by the State that the land stood acquired in Tikka Chabbar, Rey, Tatwali, Dhoulpur and Indpur.
34. Hence the Court below rightly determined compensation on the basis of material on record.
35. Noticeably since uniform rate was applied for the entire acquired land, Court below rightly did not award any amount for the loss of income of the agricultural/horticultural produce with respect to the acquired land.
36. The Court below, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer, BYDA, Bagalkot Versus Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib, (2002) 3 SCC 688, has given 10% appreciation for the years between execution of the sale deeds and acquisition of the land.
::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2023 20:34:46 :::CIS 737. Hence in the given facts and circumstances, no interference is warranted. It cannot be said that the findings returned by the Courts below are perverse, .
illegal or erroneous. As such, present appeals as also the cross-objections stand dismissed, so also pending application(s), if any.
16. In view of the award, as referred to above, the present appeal is also disposed of in the same terms. Memo of costs be prepared accordingly.
17. Pending disposed of.
r to
application(s), if any, shall also stand
(Virender Singh)
July 13, 2023 (ps) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2023 20:34:46 :::CIS