Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ntpc Ltd vs Kuldeep & Others on 15 December, 2016
Author: Sanjay Karol
Bench: Sanjay Karol
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RFA No. 425 of 2012 .
Date of Decision : December 15, 2016.
NTPC Ltd., Kol Dam ...Appellant.
Versus
Kuldeep & others ...Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
of Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Appellant : Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, Advocate, rt for the appellant-NTPC.
For the Respondents: Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3 .
Mr. R.S. Verma, Addl. AG., for respondents No.4 to 6 -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.8 of 2009, titled as Kuldeep and others Versus LAC Deputy Commissioner, Mandi 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 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:45:04 :::HCHP 2`6,41,032/-, the highest rate awarded by the Collector Land Acquisition with respect to the best quality of land.
Significantly, Reference Court has not enhanced any .
amount other then uniformly applying the said rate with respect to entire 169-15-4 bighas of land, acquired for the public purpose i.e. construction of Kol Dam.
2. Certain facts are not in dispute: (i) 169-15-40 of bighas of land came to be acquired in village Tatapani, 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. 79 of 2008, dated 08.03.2008, 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 Tatapani Dhani Abal Rs.6,41,032 .00 Dhani Dom Rs.5,29,548 .00 Barani Abal, Abadi, Khalwara Rs.3,90,194.00 etc. Barani Dom Rs.3,13,548.00 Barani Som Rs.2,09,032.00 Bagicha Barani /Kulahu Rs.6,96,774.00 Banjar Kable Kasht/Banjar Rs.1,04,516.00 Jadid Khadyatar Gair Mumkin Rs.83,613 .00 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:45:04 :::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.14 of 2009) 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 beneficiary. 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. The claimants sought to prove their case by placing on record award (Ex.PA) which pertains to village Gharyana. Now significantly, none of the witnesses, who stepped into the witnesses could establish similarity between the acquired land with that of the exemplar ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:45:04 :::HCHP 4 award with respect to its potential, use and nature. As such, Reference Court rightly did not consider the same while re-determining the market value of the acquired .
land in the reference petition, where the claimants claimed market value of the acquired land to be more than `15,00,000/-. The reasoning adopted by the Reference Court in para 29 of the impugned award is of thus legally sustainable.
5. Insofar as notification dated 17.08.2006 (Ex.PB) pertaining to the very same village i.e. Tatapani rt is concerned, Reference Court rightly rejected the same, which reasoning is clearly borne out from para 31 of the impugned award. The said notification pertains to the year 2006, whereas, the instant proceedings came to be commenced in the year 2000.
6. The claimants sought re-determination of the market value of the land, but also enhancement with respect to the superstructure built thereupon. In support they did examine certain witnesses and also Experts i.e. Kamal Nain (PW.3) and Dixit Gupta (PW.4). Now significantly these Experts admitted not to have prepared ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:45:04 :::HCHP 5 their reports, in accordance with law. Hence they were rightly not considered by the Reference Court.
7. Record reveals that even the beneficiary did .
place on record sale deed (Ex.R1). Interestingly, Reference Court found sale deed (Ex.R1) to reflect true market value, but however, since entire land was to be submerged, keeping in view the law laid down by the of Apex Court in Haridwar Development Authority Versus Raghubir Singh and others, (2010) 11 SCC 581, by taking the highest amount awarded by the Collector, uniformly rt applied the same with respect to the entire acquired land. Reasoning adopted by the Reference Court is legally unsustainable and the reason is not far to seek.
The beneficiary did not lead any evidence to establish the exemplar sale deed to be reflective of the true market value or to establish that the entire acquired land sold in terms of the exemplar sale deed. In the absence of any clear, cogent and convincing evidence, this exemplar sale deed could not have been taken into consideration while coming to the conclusion that otherwise the claimants stood adequately compensated by the Collector Land Acquisition.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:45:04 :::HCHP 68. However, insofar as re-determination of the market value of the acquired land is concerned, otherwise one finds the claimants to be entitled to sum of .
`6,41,032/- per bigha for the reason that the entire land came to be submerged under water and was fully utilized, without any development having been carried out, in connection with the public purpose, namely, of construction of Dam.
9. In Haridwar Development Authority (supra), the Apex Court has observed as under:-
rt "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 extent of the land acquired, the location, proximity to an access road/Main Road/Hig hway or to a City/Town/Village, and other relevant circumstances. We may illustrate:
(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.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:45:04 :::HCHP 7
(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 .
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 of lowest rate, the belts/strips of lands falling in between, will be awarded gradually reducing rates from the highest to the lowest. rt (D). Where a very large tract of land with a radius of one to two kilometers is acquired, but 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 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."
10. The Reference Court, rightly held the acquired land to fall within the category (D) of the aforesaid ratio.
11. No other point urged or proved.
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, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:45:04 :::HCHP 8 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.79 of 2008, so passed by the Collector several land reference petitions came to be clubbed and disposed of by the of common impugned award dated 08.11.2011 , passed by Additional District Judge, Mandi, Camp at Karsog, H.P., in Reference Petition No.8 of 2009, titled as Kuldeep and rt others Versus Deputy Commissioner and others.
Common evidence was led by the parties in land Reference Petition No.14 of 2009. 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. Registrar (Judicial) to take appropriate instructions from Hon'ble the Chief Justice for listing of such connected appeals before the appropriate Court, particulars whereof shall also be supplied by learned counsel for the parties.
(Sanjay Karol), Judge.
December 15, 2016 (Purohit /PK) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:45:04 :::HCHP