Himachal Pradesh High Court
Om Prakash & Another vs Land Acquisition Collector H.P.P.W.D on 1 August, 2018
Author: Sanjay Karol
Bench: Sanjay Karol
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RFA No. 339 of 2015 alongwith connected matters.
.
Date of Decision: 01.08.2018
1. RFA No.339 of 2015 Om Prakash & another ...Appellants.
Versus Land Acquisition Collector H.P.P.W.D., Mandi & others ..Respondents.
2. RFA No.324 of 2015 Dola Ram ...Appellant.
Versus Land Acquisition Collector H.P.P.W.D., Mandi & others ..Respondents.
3. RFA No.325 of 2015 Dayal Chand & another ...Appellants.
Versus Land Acquisition Collector H.P.P.W.D., Mandi & others ..Respondents.
4. RFA No.326 of 2015Smt.Rukmani & another ...Appellants.
Versus Land Acquisition Collector H.P.P.W.D., Mandi & others ..Respondents.
5. RFA No.327 of 2015Nand Lal & another ...Appellants.
Versus Land Acquisition Collector H.P.P.W.D., Mandi & others ..Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2018 22:58:28 :::HCHP 2 6. RFA No.328 of 2015Revat Ram & others ...Appellants.
Versus Land Acquisition Collector H.P.P.W.D., Mandi & others .
..Respondents.
7. RFA No.329 of 2015 Leela Devi ...Appellant
Versus
Land Acquisition Collector H.P.P.W.D., Mandi & others ..Respondents.
8. RFA No.330 of 2015 Abhishek Sharma ...Appellant
Versus
Land Acquisition Collector H.P.P.W.D., Mandi & others ..Respondents.
9. RFA No.331 of 2016 Les Ram & others ...Appellants
Versus
Land Acquisition Collector H.P.P.W.D., Mandi & others ..Respondents.
10. RFA No.332 of 2015Gambhir Singh & others ...Appellants.
Versus Land Acquisition Collector H.P.P.W.D., Mandi & others ..Respondents.
11. RFA No.333 of 2015 Chaman Singh ...Appellant
Versus
Land Acquisition Collector H.P.P.W.D., Mandi & others ..Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2018 22:58:28 :::HCHP 3 12. RFA No.334 of 2015Uttam Chand & others ...Appellants.
Versus Land Acquisition Collector H.P.P.W.D., Mandi & others .
..Respondents.
13. RFA No.335 of 2015Kishan Chand @ Ram Chand ...Appellant Versus Land Acquisition Collector H.P.P.W.D., Mandi & others ..Respondents.
14. RFA No.336 of 2015Smt.Sheela Devi & others ...Appellants.
Versus Land Acquisition Collector H.P.P.W.D., Mandi & others ..Respondents.
15. RFA No.337 of 2015Ranjeet Singh & others ...Appellants.
Versus Land Acquisition Collector H.P.P.W.D., Mandi & others ..Respondents.
16. RFA No.338 of 2015Pitamber & another ...Appellant Versus Land Acquisition Collector H.P.P.W.D., Mandi & others ..Respondents.
17. RFA No.340 of 2015Uttam Chand & others ...Appellants.
Versus Land Acquisition Collector H.P.P.W.D., Mandi & others ..Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2018 22:58:28 :::HCHP 4 18. RFA No.341 of 2015Dayal Chand & another ...Appellants.
Versus Land Acquisition Collector H.P.P.W.D., Mandi & others .
..Respondents.
19. RFA No.342 of 2015Smt.Tila Devi & another ...Appellants.
Versus Land Acquisition Collector H.P.P.W.D., Mandi & others ..Respondents.
20. RFA No.343 of 2015Tule Ram & another ...Appellants.
Versus Land Acquisition Collector H.P.P.W.D., Mandi & others ..Respondents.
21. RFA No.344 of 2015 Lal Chand ...Appellant
Versus
Land Acquisition Collector H.P.P.W.D., Mandi & others ..Respondents.
22. RFA No.345 of 2015Dayal Chand & another ...Appellants.
Versus Land Acquisition Collector H.P.P.W.D., Mandi & others ..Respondents.
23. RFA No.346 of 2015Beli Ram & another ...Appellants.
Versus Land Acquisition Collector H.P.P.W.D., Mandi & others ..Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2018 22:58:28 :::HCHP 5 24. RFA No.347 of 2015Smt. Chhali @ Sheela Devi ...Appellant Versus Land Acquisition Collector H.P.P.W.D., Mandi & others .
..Respondents.
25. RFA No.348 of 2015Sher Singh @ Shamsher Singh & others ...Appellants.
Versus Land Acquisition Collector H.P.P.W.D., Mandi & others ..Respondents.
26. RFA No.349 of 2015Kanwar Singh & others ...Appellants.
Versus Land Acquisition Collector H.P.P.W.D., Mandi & others ..Respondents.
27. RFA No.350 of 2015 Likhat Ram ...Appellant
Versus
Land Acquisition Collector H.P.P.W.D., Mandi & others ..Respondents.
28. RFA No.416 of 2015
Shri Jogi (since deceased
Through LRs) ...Appellants.
Versus
Land Acquisition Collector H.P.P.W.D., Mandi & others ..Respondents.
29. RFA No.417 of 2015Shri Bhawani Singh & others ...Appellants.
Versus Land Acquisition Collector H.P.P.W.D., Mandi & others ..Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2018 22:58:28 :::HCHP 6Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice. Whether approved for reporting?1No. For the Appellants: Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for .
the appellants.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with Mr.Adarsh Sharma, Additional Advocate General & Ms.Svaneel Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State.
Sanjay Karol, ACJ (oral) In these appeals, so filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the claimants have assailed the common award dated 03.03.2015, passed by Additional District Judge, Kullu, H.P., in Reference Petition No.102 of 2014 (2013), titled as Om Prakash & another vs. Land Acquisition Collector, H.P.P.W.D., Mandi, H.P., alongwith other connected matters.
2. The short point which arises for consideration in the present appeals is as to whether the claimants are entitled to incremental increase @ 10% for each succeeding year from the date of passing of the Referral Award till the date of initiation of acquisition proceedings or not.1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2018 22:58:28 :::HCHP 73. Certain facts are not in dispute. For public purpose, namely, construction of Bagar Nall to Parohadhar Road, the State initiated acquisition proceedings under the .
provisions of the Act. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the gazette on 22.07.2006. The Collector Land Acquisition passed his Award No.1 of 2011, dated 22.01.2011. The extent of total land acquired is 25-0-18 bighas and the Collector Land Acquisition determined the market value classification wise ranging from `57,231/- to `2,28,924/- per bigha.
4. Aggrieved thereof, 38 Reference Petitions came to be filed by different claimants, which were adjudicated, in terms of the impugned award dated 03.03.2015. The Reference Court discarding the sale deeds produced on record by the claimants, relying upon the Award dated 01.09.2003, passed by District Judge, Kullu, H.P., in Reference Petition No.107/02, titled as Panna Lal vs. Collector, Land Acquisition, Kullu (Ex.PW.1/J), as affirmed by this Court in RFA No.134 of 2004, titled as Collector, Land Acquisition and another vs. Panna Lal (Ex.PW.1/S), re-determined the market value of the acquired land @ `14,666/- per biswa i.e. `2,93,320/- per bigha (20 Biswas= 1 Bigha).
::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2018 22:58:28 :::HCHP 85. State is not aggrieved of the impugned award or the findings returned therein. The claimants lay challenge on a limited ground. It is not their case that the Reference Court .
erred in ignoring the sale deeds, so placed on record by them.
In fact, only point argued is that having referred to and relied upon Award (Ex.PW.1/J), Reference Court ought to have applied the principle of increase of price at 10% on annual basis, which was not so done in the instant cases and the enhancement given is only for a period of one year, whereas, it ought to have been for at least seven years.
6. It is not in dispute that Award (Ex.PW.1/J) pertains to the acquisition of land, for the construction of Bhunter-
Diyar-Shondhadhar road and the acquired land was in the very same Phati (Village). It is also not in dispute that the Award under Section 11 of the Act (Award No.9 of 2000), was issued by the Collector Land Acquisition on 27.09.2000, whereby market value was determined @ `60,000/- per bigha, but however, the Reference Court enhanced the same to `13,333/- per biswa (`2,66,660/- per bigha). It is also not in dispute that the said Award (Ex.PW.1/J) stands affirmed by this Court in RFA No.134 of 2004 (Ex.PW.1/S).
7. From the ocular evidence of Sher Singh (PW.1), it has come on record that the instant acquired land had very ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2018 22:58:28 :::HCHP 9 same potential with respect to nature, use and quality as was that of the exemplar Award (Ex.PW.1/J). There is nothing in the cross-examination part of his testimony, which would .
impeach the creditworthiness of this witness or veracity of his statement. In fact, State did not lead any evidence, save and except that the District Attorney tendered in evidence certain sale deeds. Well, these sale deeds were also rightly not considered, for there was no evidence on record to establish as to how they could have been referred to and relied upon for determining the market value of the acquired land.
8. With these undisputed facts, the only question, which arises for consideration is as to whether the Reference Court erred in returning its findings in paragraph 17 of the impugned award by giving increase of 10% on the market value, so determined vide award (Ex.PW.1/J) or not?
9. It is not in dispute that proceedings for acquisition of land, in terms of exemplar Award (Ex.PW.1/J) were initiated on 15.01.1999. Award under Section 11 of the Act was passed on 27.09.2000. The acquisition proceedings in the instant case were initiated with the publication of notification in the official gazette on 22.07.2006. Thus, the claimants were entitled to enhancement incrementally, on annual basis ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2018 22:58:28 :::HCHP 10 from the year 1999 till the year 2006. However, the Reference Court has factored the increase by only one year.
10. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the .
Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer, BTDA, Bagalkot vs. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib, (2002) 3 SCC 688; K. Sharadarani Srinivas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, (2010) 15 SCC 524; and Digamber and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2013) 14 SCC 406, the claimants would be entitled to market value @ `14,666/- plus 10% per biswa, on annual basis, till the year 2006, which comes to `25,987/- per biswa i.e. `5,19,740/- per bigha.
11. At this stage, under instructions, Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel, states that since the claimants, who are poor, are in urgent need of money and to put an end to the controversy and avoid future litigation, they would be content if amount is restricted to `4,00,000/- per bigha.
Statement accepted and taken on record.
12. Under these circumstances, the impugned award dated 03.03.2015, passed by Additional District Judge, Kullu, H.P., in Reference Petition No.102 of 2014 (2013), titled as Om Prakash & another vs. Land Acquisition Collector, H.P.P.W.D., Mandi, H.P., alongwith other connected matters, is modified to the extent that the market value of the acquired ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2018 22:58:28 :::HCHP 11 land is re-determined @ `4,00,000/- per bigha, being the restricted claim, instead of `14,666/- per biswa i.e. `2,93,320/-
per bigha. The modification is only to this extent and the .
remaining portion of the award shall continue to operate as such.
All the appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also pending application(s), if any.
(Sanjay Karol), August 1, 2018 Acting Chief Justice. (Purohit/PK) ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2018 22:58:28 :::HCHP