Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Renuka Dam Project And Another vs Sh.Surender Singh And Others on 2 November, 2018
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA No. 370 of 2014 along with RFA Nos. 371 to 380 of 2014 and RFA Nos.
.
94 and 95 of 2015 Judgment Reserved on: 5.9.2018 Date of Decision: 2.11.2018
1. RFA No. 370 of 2014 The Renuka Dam Project and another ...Appellants.
Versus Sh.Surender Singh and others. ...Respondents.
2. RFA No. 371 of 2014 The Renuka Dam Project and another ...Appellants.
Versus Sh.Roop Singh & Another. ...Respondents.
3. RFA No. 372 of 2014 The Renuka Dam Project and another ...Appellants.
Versus Sh.Rajinder Kumar & Another. ...Respondents.
4. RFA No. 373 of 2014 The Renuka Dam Project and another ...Appellants.
Versus Smt.Anita and others. ...Respondents.
5. RFA No. 374 of 2014The Renuka Dam Project and another ...Appellants.
Versus Sh.Mata Ram and Another. ...Respondents.
6. RFA No. 375 of 2014The Renuka Dam Project and another ...Appellants.
Versus Sh.Tara Chand and others. ...Respondents.
7. RFA No. 376 of 2014The Renuka Dam Project and another ...Appellants.
Versus Sh. Bodh Singh and Another. ...Respondents.
8. RFA No. 377 of 2014The Renuka Dam Project and another ...Appellants.
Versus Sh.Manga Ram & Another. ...Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2018 22:57:32 :::HCHP 2RFA No. 370 of 2014 & connected matters 9. RFA No. 378 of 2014 The Renuka Dam Project and another ...Appellants.
Versus Sh.Rikhi Ram & Another. ...Respondents.
.
10. RFA No. 379 of 2014The Renuka Dam Project and another ...Appellants.
Versus
Sh. Munia & Another. ...Respondents.
11. RFA No. 380 of 2014
The Renuka Dam Project and another ...Appellants.
Versus
Sh.Surender Singh and others. ...Respondents.
12. RFA No. 94 of 2015
The Renuka Dam Project and another ...Appellants.
Versus
Sh.Uma Dutt through LRs and others. ...Respondents.
13. RFA No. 95 of 2015
The Renuka Dam Project and another ...Appellants.
Versus
Smt. Gulabi Devi and others. ...Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Appellant(s): Mr.Vivek Negi, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr.M.P. Kanwar and Mr.Pawan K. Sharma, Advocates.
Mr.Shiv Pal Manhans and
Ms.Rameeta Kumari, Additional
Advocate General with Mr.Raju Ram
Rahi, Deputy Advocate General, for
respondent-State.
Vivek Singh Thakur Judge
These appeals arising out of the common award dated 30.5.2014, passed by learned District Judge, Sirmaur, Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2018 22:57:32 :::HCHP 3 RFA No. 370 of 2014 & connected matters District Nahan, H.P., (herein after referred to as the Reference Court) in land Reference Petition Nos. 10-LAC/4 of 2012, 01- .
LAC/4 of 2012, 02-LAC/4 of 2012, 03-LAC/4 of 2012, 04-LAC/4 of 2012, 5-LAC/4 of 2012, 6-LAC/4 of 2012, 7-LAC/4 of 2012, 8- LAC/4 of 2012, 9-LAC/4 of 2012, 11-LAC/4 of 2012, 12-LAC/4 of 2012 and13-LAC/4 of 2012 have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment, as identical question of fact and law is involved therein is to be determined on the basis of common evidence lead in one case.
2. Government of Himachal Pradesh, for the purpose of construction of Renukaji Dam, has acquired land situated in village Panar Kalyan in pursuance to notification dated 24.7.2009 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1994 (herein after referred to as the 'Act' in short), last publication wherein was on 14.9.2009. Land Acquisition Collector vide award No. 624 dated 30.4.2011 has determined different rates of acquired land for calculating amount of compensation on the basis of its nature and classification, ranging from `60,500/- per bigha to `3,60,000/- per bigha.
3. In Land Reference Petitions, preferred by land owners/claimants, under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation, Reference Court has enhanced the compensation by awarding uniform rate of acquired land at the rate of `5,00,000/- per bigha. Being aggrieved by this enhancement, beneficiary project has preferred these appeals under Section 54 of the Act.
::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2018 22:57:32 :::HCHP 4RFA No. 370 of 2014 & connected matters
4. In Reference Court land owners/claimants have examined PW-1 Surnder Singh on behalf of land .
owners/claimants and PW-2 Ajay Goel, Vendee in the sale deed Ex. PW-1/B. Land owners have relied upon sale deeds Ex. PW-
1/B, Ex. PW-1/C, Ex. PW-1/D, Ex. PC and also awards Ex. PA and PB. Whereas beneficiary proponent has examined one witness RW-1 Ashok Kumar, Patwari of Patwar Circle Dadhau and has relied upon Khaka Dasti Ex. RW-1/A, one year average cost Ex. RW-1/B and sale deeds Ex. RA to RD and also award Ex. RE.
5. It is undisputed fact that land under acquisition has to submerge in Renukaji Dam and no further construction or development activity has been undertaken by the beneficiary project thereupon, for its utilization i.e. submerging thereof in dam.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant beneficiary project has contended that Reference Court has committed a mistake on four counts, i.e. firstly by taking into consideration sale deed of small area, ignoring various pronouncements of the Apex Court, including Land Acquisition Officer & Sub-Collector, Gadwal Vs. Sreelatha Bhoopal (Smt.) and Another (1997) 9 SCC 628; Bijender and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another (2018) 11 SCC 180; secondly relying upon award related to a different village ignoring pronouncements of the Apex Court in Kanwar Singh and others etc. etc. Vs. Union of India, AIR 1999 SC 317; State of Madhya Pradesh and others ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2018 22:57:32 :::HCHP 5 RFA No. 370 of 2014 & connected matters Vs. Kashiram (dead) by Lrs. And others, (2010) 14 SCC 506;
thirdly without taking into consideration disability of land owners .
for putting the land in question for some other use than the agriculture for a restriction imposed upon them as the land in question had been allotted to land owners only out of Shamlat land owned and possessed by Panchayat, for which land owners were not entitled to be compensated at all, particularly in view of pronouncement of the Apex Court in Goa Housing Board Vs. Rameshchandra Govind Pawaskar, (2011) 10 SCC 371; and fourthly that the Reference court has also failed to make deductions for development charges, in accordance with ratio laid down by the Apex Court in cases Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority Vs. Gobinda Chandra Makal and Another, (2011) 9 SCC 207; Haridwar Development Authority Vs. Raghubir Singh and others, (2010) 11 SCC 581; Indian Council of Medical Research Vs. T.N. Sanikop and Another, (2014) 16 SCC 274 and Bijender' case supra.
7. On the contrary learned counsel for the land-
owners/claimants, after putting reliance on Himmat Singh and others Vs. State of Madhaya Pradesh and Another, (2013) 16 SCC 392, has contended that Reference Court has rightly determined the value of land and keeping in view the fact that before putting the land in use for which the land has been acquired, no developmental activity is to be undertaken, no deduction on account of development charges is required and further that in view of evidence on record , Reference Court has ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2018 22:57:32 :::HCHP 6 RFA No. 370 of 2014 & connected matters rightly relied upon the award of adjoining village Ex. PB and sale deed Ex. PW-1/D. .
8. It is well settled that at the time of determining market value of land for acquisition, the purpose for which the land is acquired, is relevant and not nature and classification of land and where nature and classification of the land has no relevance for purpose of acquisition, market value of the land is classification of the land.
r to to be determined as a single unit irrespective of nature and In such a case, uniform rate to all kinds of land under acquisition as a single unit irrespective of their nature and classification is to be awarded. (See Dadu Ram Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and others (2016) 2 ILR 636 (HP); H.P. Housing Board Vs. Ram Lal and others, 2003 (3) Shim.L.C. 64; Union of India Vs. Harinder Pal Singh and others 2005 (12) SCC 564; Executive Engineer and another Vs. Dila Ram, Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 1007; LAC and another Vs. Bhoop Ram and others, 1997 (2) SLC 229; Smt. Gulabi and etc. Vs. State of H.P. (AIR 1998 HP 9) and G.M. Northern Railway Vs. Gulzar Singh and others (Latest HLJ 2014 (HP)
775).
9. Further, it is also settled that when the purpose of acquisition is common and no developmental activity is required to be carried out, compensation is to be awarded at uniform rate.
(See Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by LRs. Vs. State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789; Himat Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, (2013) 16 SCC 392 and ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2018 22:57:32 :::HCHP 7 RFA No. 370 of 2014 & connected matters Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Dead) by Legal Representatives and others Vs. State of Karnataka and .
Another, (2015) 10 SCC 469).
10. As provided under Section 25 of the Act, Court cannot award compensation lesser than that awarded by Land Acquisition Collector (See Shub Ram & others Vs. State of Haryana and another 2010 (1) SCC 444). Therefore, where uniform rate of compensation is to be awarded, it cannot be less than highest rate determined by the Land Acquisition Collector.
11. Law with respect to allowing or disallowing the deduction on account of development charges is also no longer res-integra and stands settled as also held in the Apex Court in Himat Singh's case supra and Union of India and Others Vs. N.S. Rathnam and Sons (2015) 10 SCC 681, that when for using the land, for the purpose for which it is acquired, no development activity is undertaken by the beneficiary, no question of expenditure for development thereon would arise and therefore, in such case deduction by way of development charges is impermissible as where there is no development activity, there is no reason to deduct development charges.
Therefore, law cited on behalf of appellant, claiming deduction on account of development charges is not applicable in the present case.
12. It is also settled that when no exemplar transactions are available pertaining to the village in which the land under acquisition is situated, exemplar transaction including the sale ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2018 22:57:32 :::HCHP 8 RFA No. 370 of 2014 & connected matters deeds and awards passed for acquiring the land of different village, can also be taken into consideration, but after making .
appropriate additions or deductions, on the basis of comparison of nature, location and potentiality of the land of two villages.
(See Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala, (1991) 4 SCC, 195; Jai Prakash and others Vs. Union of India (1997) 9 SCC 510; Kanwar Singh and others Vs. Union of India (1998) 8 SCC 136 and Manoj Kumar etc. Vs. State of Haryana, 2017 SCC Online SC 1262).
13. The Apex Court in case titled Chindha Fakira Patil (dead) through LRS. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon (2011) 10 SCC 787, after considering all its previous pronouncements in M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur Vs. Collector of Madras (1969) 1 MLJ 45 (SC), State of Punjab Vs. Hans Raj (1994) 5 SCC 734, Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Chindha Fakira Patil (2007) 2 Mah LJ 130 and Anjani Molu Dessai Vs. State of Goa (2010) 13 SCC 710, instead of awarding compensation on the basis of average sale price of transactions has awarded the compensation on the basis of sale deed representing the highest value of the land, as the average sale price of transaction relied upon by the respondent therein was far less than the price for which the land was sold in the exemplar sale deed relied upon by the claimants.
14. It is admitted case of the parties, as has been suggested on behalf of appellant-beneficiary at the time of cross-
examining PW-1, that during the relevant period taken into ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2018 22:57:32 :::HCHP 9 RFA No. 370 of 2014 & connected matters consideration for assessing the value of land, no transaction had taken place in village Panar Kalyan. This fact is also .
substantiated from the fact that all the sale deeds relied upon by appellant-beneficiary Ex. RA, Ex. RB, Ex. RC and Ex. RD pertain to another village namely Dungi Kandyon. However, Reference Court has rightly discarded these sale deeds for the reason that value of land according to these sale deeds comes to even less than the lowest rate awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector.
As per Section 25 of the Act, Reference Court cannot determine the value of land less than that determined by Land Acquisition Collector. In these transactions, sale deed Ex. RA gives highest value of land as `55,000/- per bigha, whereas average of these transactions would be `37,000/- per bigha. Both values are lesser than value determined by Land Acquisition Collector.
Similarly in award No. 610 dated 8.7.2010, Ex. RE, pertaining to village Dungi Kandyon, also value of land determined as `60,500/- is lesser than `3,60,000/- per bigha determined by Collector in present case. For the same reason average value placed on record vide Annexure RW-1/B, indicating the highest value of the land in village Panar Kalyan at the rate of `2,25,961/- per bigha, has also rightly been discarded by the Reference Court as it would determined the value of acquired land less than the value determine by the Land Acquisition Collector i.e. at the rate of `3,60,000/- per bigha.
15. Though in Khaka Dasti village Dungi Kandyon has been shown in between village Panar Kalyan and Chuli Dadahu, ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2018 22:57:32 :::HCHP 10 RFA No. 370 of 2014 & connected matters however, there is no evidence on record with regard to similarity of nature and potentiality of land of these villages Panar Kalyan .
and Dungi Kandyon. These three villages have been shown situated in one line, one after another, indicating that village Dungi Kadyon is in between village Panar Kalyan and Chuli Dadahu. It is also admitted fact that all these three villages fall in patwar circle Dadhau.
16. In affidavit Ex. PW-1/A filed in examination-in-chief of PW-1 Surender Kumar, it is stated that acquisition of land in village Panar Kalyan and Chuli Dadahu was started at one time, however, on account of stay order passed by National Green Tribunal, the award in case of village Chuli Dadahu was announced one year later and further that the land of village Dungi Kandyon and Panar Kalyan is not similar, but the land of Chuli Dadahu is comparable with village of Panar Kalyan. These averments have not been questioned in cross-examination to this witness and have also not been refuted by leading any evidence in rebuttal. PW-2 Ajay Goel has also categorically denied that village Panar Kalyan cannot be equated with the land of Chuli Dadahu. RW-1 Ashok Kumar, in his cross-examination has also admitted that land of village Panar Kalyan, Dheera Bangar and mauja Dadahu are similar in location and potentiality.
17. Land owners/claimants have relied upon Ex. PW-
1/B, Ex. PW-1/C, Ex. PW-1/D and Ex. PC and also awards Ex.
PA and Ex. PB. As per sale deed Ex. PW-1/B, value of land ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2018 22:57:32 :::HCHP 11 RFA No. 370 of 2014 & connected matters becomes `3,33,300/- per bigha. However, the said value is lower than `3,60,000/- per bigha, the value determined by Land .
Accusation Collector. In sale deed Ex. PW-1/C 0-2-6 bigha was sold for `1,10,000/-, but along with structure constructed thereupon. There are no details in the said sale deed with respect of separate value of land and structure and therefore, this sale deed cannot be considered as an exemplar transaction.
As per sale deed Ex. PC, value of land becomes to `4,00,000/-
per bigha, whereas as per sale deed Ex. PW-1/D, value of land becomes to `5,00,000/- per bigha. Aforesaid all sale deeds pertain to village Chuli Dadahu and award Ex. PB also pertains to village Chuli Dadahu. In award No. 625 dated 30.4.2011 Ex.
PA, Land Acquisition Collector has determined the highest value of land at the rate of `3,60,000/- per bigha, like the present case, but the said award has not attained finality yet, hence cannot be considered as exemplar award. As discussed above, there is some evidence on record to establish similarity of land of Panar Kalyan with that of village Chuli Dadahu. In sale deed Ex. PW-
1/D, value of land becomes to `5,00,000/- per bigha, which is highest. Applying the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Chinda Fakira Patil's case supra sale deed Ex. PW-1/D depicting the highest value of land, can be made basis for determining the compensation. Though there is evidence on record with respect to similarity of land of village Panar Kalyan with that of land of village Chuli Dadahu and the value of land in village Chuli Dadahu in Ex. PB has been determined at `13,00,000/- per ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2018 22:57:32 :::HCHP 12 RFA No. 370 of 2014 & connected matters bigha by Land Acquisition Collector itself, but keeping in view the fact that value of land as determined by land Acquisition .
Collector on the basis of evidence on record at the rate of `5,00,000/- has not been further assailed by the land owners/claimants for enhancement, and thus I find that on the basis of evidence on record, there is no reason to interfere in the value determined by Reference Court at the rate of `5,00,000/-
per bigha, particularly keeping in view the highest value of land on the basis of sale deed Ex. PW-1/D.
18. It is also pertinent to notice that Land Acquisition Collector at the time of passing award pertaining to land in question in present appeal on 30.4.2011 had awarded the compensation on the basis of nature and classification of the land, whereas in award No. 648 Ex. PB passed on 6.8.2012 pertains to village Chuli Dadahu, he had awarded compensation at uniform rate to the tune of `13,00,000/- per bigha, irrespective of nature and classification of the land.
19. The value of land, in award passed by Land Accusation Collector itself, acquired for the same purpose during the same time period, has been determined at the rate of `13,00,000/- per bigha, whereas Reference Court while relying upon the same award of village Chuli Dadahu, has not awarded `13,00,000/- per bigha to the land owners belonging to village Panar Kalyan and has determined the value of land of village Panar Kalyan at the rate of `5,00,000/- per bigha, which is about 62% lesser than the value of land determined for village Chuli ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2018 22:57:32 :::HCHP 13 RFA No. 370 of 2014 & connected matters Dadahu, which is sufficient deduction for exemplar transaction/award pertains to different village coupled with week .
evidence of similarity of nature and potentiality. Therefore, no further deduction on this count is required. Even if sale deed Ex.
PW-1/D is also discarded, the amount of compensation as discussed supra has been determined 62% lesser than the amount determined in the award Ex. PB. Therefore, no
20. to interference on this count is warranted in the impugned award.
Pleas of appellants that on account of disability of claimants with respect to their ownership in the shyamlat land and prohibition with regard to putting the land under acquisition in use for other purpose, is not sustainable, as there is nothing on record in evidence to establish that claimants were limited owners of land in question and/or there was any prohibition/restriction to put the land in use for another purpose, than the agricultural purpose.
21. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find that Reference Court has rightly determined the enhanced market value of land at the rate of `5,00,000/- per bigha, irrespective of nature and classification of land and therefore, the impugned award dated 30.5.2014, passed by learned Reference Court is upheld and appeals are dismissed. No order to costs. Record be sent back.
(Vivek Singh Thakur),
2nd November, 2018 Judge.
(KRS)
::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2018 22:57:32 :::HCHP