Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ntpc Ltd vs Manmohan & Others on 15 December, 2016
Author: Sanjay Karol
Bench: Sanjay Karol
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RFA No. 440 of 2012 .
Date of Decision : December 14, 2016.
NTPC Ltd., Kol Dam ...Appellant.
Versus
Manmohan & others ...Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
of Whether approved for reporting? 1No.
For the Appellant : Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, Advocate,
rt for the appellant-NTPC.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
Mr. R.S. Verma, Addl. AG., for respondents No.2 and 3-State.
Sanjay Karol, J (oral).
In terms of the impugned award dated 08.11.2011, passed by Additional District Judge, Mandi, Camp at Karsog, H.P., in Reference Petition No.44 of 2008, titled as Komal Chand Versus LAC (Kol Dam), Bilaspur and others, so filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), Reference Court, has re-determined the market value of the entire acquired land by awarding `6,08,980/-, the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:45:05 :::HCHP 2highest rate awarded by the Collector Land Acquisition with respect to the best quality of land . Significantly, Reference Court has not enhanced any amount other .
than uniformly applying the said rate with respect to entire 132-10-8 bighas of land, acquired for public purpose i.e. construction of Kol Dam.
2. Certain facts are not in dispute: (i) 132-10-8 of bighas of land came to be acquired in village Thali, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. with the publication of notification in the official gazette on 19.12.2000, so rt issued under Section 4 of the Act; (ii) The acquisition proceedings concluded with the passing of the Collector's Award No.57 of 2006, dated 29.09.2006, so issued under Section 11 of the Act, whereby he determined the market value at the following rates and the State taking over possession of the land:-
Village Classification of land Market value per bigha Sarour Dhani Abal Rs.6,08,980.00 Thogi Dhani Dom Rs.5,03,071.00 Kidiya Barani Abal, Abadi, Khalwara Rs.3,70,684/-
etc.
Randol Barani Dom Rs.2,97,871.00
Thali Barani Som Rs.1,98,580.00
Bagicha Barani /Kulahu Rs.6,61,935.00
Banjar Kable Kasht/Banjar Rs.99,290.00
Jadid
Khadyatar Gair Mumkin Rs.79,472.00
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:45:05 :::HCHP
3
(iii) The purpose of acquisition being construction of Dam, commonly known as Kol Dam; (iv) Dissatisfied with the offer made by the Collector, claimants filed petitions .
under Section 18 of the Act, which came to be clubbed (with Reference Petition No.44 of 2008) and on the basis of common evidence led by the parties, disposed of in terms of impugned award ; (v) While the claimants of accepted the award, only the beneficiary preferred the present appeal(s) under Section 54 of the Act; (vi) It is the common case of parties that the entire acquired land rt came to be submerged with the construction of Dam by the ben eficiary. Also there is no evidence on record of either any requirement or any developmental activity carried out on the spot.
3. With these admitted/undisputed facts, material placed on record by the parties is being appreciated for just decision of the case.
4. Before Reference Court claimant examined three witnes ses, namely, Thakur Dass (PW.1), Sant Ram (PW.2) and Kamlesh (PW.3) through whom they proved on record sale deed (Ex.PW.1/A), judgment rendered by District Judge (F), Shimla, in Land Reference Petitio n ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:45:05 :::HCHP 4 No.60-S/4 of 08/06, on 30.10.2009 (Ex.PB) and judgment rendered by Additional District Judge, Mandi, Camp at Karsog, in Reference Petition No.49 of 2007, titled as .
Kesar Singh Versus Collector LAC & another, on 09.05.2011 (Ex.PC). The beneficiary did place on record sale transaction (Ex.R1). But however, did not lead any evidence to establish similarity with the acquired land.
of
5. Court below rightly rejected the exemplar sale deed, so produced on record by the beneficiary. There is no evidence establishing similarity with the acquired rt land. Also the sale transaction proved on record by the claimants rightly stands rejected for the reason that it pertained to the period subsequent to the commencement of the acquisition proceedings. Insofar as award (Ex.PB) is concerned, there is no evidence of the similarity of the acquired land with that of the village Gharyana as is so observed by the Reference Court in paragraph 26 of the impugned award. Insofar as award (Ex.PC) is concerned, even though it pertains to village Tatapani, but however, it was for notification issued on 17.08.2006 i.e. after six years of the commencement of the instant acquisition proceedings. As such, Reference ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:45:05 :::HCHP 5 Court, by affording reasons, in paragraph 38 of the impugned award, rightly discarded the same.
6. Noticeably with respect to other acquired .
land, in the same Tehsil, even this Court has awarded compensation, on uniform basis, irrespective of the classification, nature and category of land. In fact, in one such case reported in NTPC Ltd. Versus Kirpa and others, of Latest HLJ 2016 (HP) 253, with respect to the acquisition proceedings pertaining to very same public purpose stands affirmed by the Apex Court.
rt
7. It is a matter of record that the Collector himself observed that the market value of the land in village Tatapani, keeping in view its advantageous location and other facilities available, was higher.
However, Collector himself, by only giving deduction of 5%, determined the market value of the acquired land in village Thali by 5%. Collector, who was familiar with the terrain, geography and the overall facilities available in the area, allowed deduction by only 5%. Thus, the land in village Thali, may not be having the entire facilities, like hospitals etc., but had the potential for growth. The Collector himself observed that village Thali was almost ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:45:05 :::HCHP 6 adjoining to village Tatapani. Reference Court, by taking into account the principle laid down in Haridwar Development Authority Versus Raghubir Singh and .
others, (2010) 11 SCC 581, rightly found the instant land to fall within category (D) specified by the Apex Court in the said decision, relevant portion whereof, reads as under:-
of "7. The question whether the acquired lands have to be valued uniformly at the same rate, or whether different areas in the acquired lands have to be valued at different rates, depends upon the rt extent of the land acquired, the location, proximity to an access road/Main Road/Highway or to a City/Town/Village, and other relevant circumstances. We may illustra te:
(A). When a small and compact extent of land is acquired and the entire area is similarly situated, it will be appropriate to value the acquired land at a single uniform rate.
(B). If a large tract of land is acquired with some lands facing a main road or a national highway and other lands being in the interior, the normal procedure is to value the lands adjacent to the main road at a higher rate and the interior lands which do not have road access, at a lesser rate. (C). Where a very large tract of land on the outskirts of a town is acquired, one end of the acquired lands adjoining the town boundary, the other end being two to three kilometers away, obviously, the rate that is adopted for the land ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:45:05 :::HCHP 7 nearest to the town cannot be adopted for the land which is farther away from the town. In such a situation, what is known as a belting method is adopted and the belt or strip adjacent to the town boundary will be given the highest .
price, the remotest belt will be awarded the lowest rate, the belts/strips of lands falling in between, will be awarded gradually reducing rates from the highest to the lowest. (D). Where a very large tract of land with a radius of one to two kilometers is acquired, but of the entire land acquired is far away from any town or city limits, without any special Main road access, then it is logical to award the entire rt land, one uniform rate. The fact that the distance between one points to another point in the acquired lands, may be as much as two to three kilometers may not make any difference."
8. The Reference Court, rightly held the acquired land to fall within category (D).
9. Reference Court rightly observed that village Thali is just at a distance of 5 kms from village Tatapani, and rightly determined the market value of the acquired land by awarding highest rate, so determined by the Collector Land Acquisition with respect to the entire acquired land.
10. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that Tatapani is a famous tourist place having historical value.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:45:05 :::HCHP 8The Reference Court has alr eady accounted for these factors and it cannot be said that re-determination of the market value by the Reference Court is on the higher .
side and is not based on the true market value which a willing vendor and willing vendee are ready to receive and pay.
11. No other point urged or proved.
of
12. Hence in the given facts and circumstances, no interference is warranted. It cannot be said that the findings returned by the Reference Court are perverse, rt illegal or erroneous. As such, present appeal stands dismissed, so also pending application(s), if any.
13. Cross-objection, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
14. Quite evidently, in terms of award No.57of 2006, so passed by the Collector several land reference petitions came to be clubbed and disposed of by the common impugned award dated 08.11.2011 , passed by Additional District Judge, Mandi, Camp at Karsog, H.P., in Reference Petition No.44 of 2008, titled as Komal Chand through LRs Versus The LAC (Kol Dam), Bilaspur and others. Common evidence was led by the parties in land ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:45:05 :::HCHP 9 Reference Petition No.44 of 2008, subject matter of the present appeal. Learned counsel for the parties contend that decision rendered in the present appeal would .
automatically apply to other connected matters which are pending before this Court. R egistrar (Judicial) to take appropriate instructions from Hon'ble the Chief Justice for listing of such connected appeals before the appropriate of Court, particulars whereof shall also be supplied by learned counsel for the parties.
rt (Sanjay Karol),
Judge.
December 14, 2016
(Purohit /PK)
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:45:05 :::HCHP