Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ranjeet Singh (Since Deceased) Through ... vs The Land Acquisition Collector & ... on 24 August, 2018
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA No. 390 of 2010 along with RFA .
Nos. 370, 391 to 400, 407 to 413, 443 to 475 of 2010 and 182 to 190 of 2011 Judgment Reserved on: 20.8.2018 Date of Decision: 24.8.2018
1. RFA No. 390 of 2010 Ranjeet Singh (since deceased) through LRs. ...Appellants.
Versus The Land Acquisition Collector & Another.
r ...Respondents.
2. RFA No. 370 of 2010
Smt.Vidya Devi & Another. ...Appellants.
Versus
The Land Acquisition Collector & Another. ...Respondents.
3. RFA No. 391 of 2010
Sh. Ghamira. ...Appellant.
Versus
The Land Acquisition Collector & Another. ...Respondents.
4. RFA No. 392 of 2010
Sh. Krishan Lal & others. ...Appellants.
Versus
The Land Acquisition Collector & Another. ...Respondents.
5. RFA No. 393 of 2010
Sh.Krishan Dass. ...Appellant.
Versus
The Land Acquisition Collector & Another. ...Respondents.
6. RFA No. 394 of 2010
Shri Purshotam Dutt and Another. ...Appellants.
Versus
The Land Acquisition Collector & Another. ...Respondents.
7. RFA No. 395 of 2010
Sh.Kali Dass. ...Appellant.
Versus
The Land Acquisition Collector & Another. ...Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2018 21:36:28 :::HCHP
2
RFA No. 390 of 2010 & connected matters
8. RFA No. 396 of 2010
Sh.Garja Ram. ...Appellant.
.
Versus
The Land Acquisition Collector & Another. ...Respondents.
9. RFA No. 397 of 2010
Smt.Dili Devi. ...Appellant.
Versus
The Land Acquisition Collector & Another. ...Respondents.
10. RFA No. 398 of 2010
Smt.Fulan Devi and others. ...Appellants.
Versus
The Land Acquisition Collector & Another. ...Respondents.
11. RFA No. 399 of 2010
Smt. Larju Devi & others. ...Appellants.
Versus
The Land Acquisition Collector & Another. ...Respondents.
12. RFA No. 400 of 2010
Sh.Budhi Ram. ...Appellant.
Versus
The Land Acquisition Collector & Another. ...Respondents.
13. RFA No. 407 of 2010
Sh.Anil Kumar and others. ...Appellants.
Versus
The Land Acquisition Collector & Another. ...Respondents.
14. RFA No. 408 of 2010
Sh.Bhadru Ram and others. ...Appellants.
Versus
The Land Acquisition Collector & Another. ...Respondents.
15. RFA No. 409 of 2010
Sh.Ram Lal. ...Appellant.
Versus
The Land Acquisition Collector & Another. ...Respondents.
16. RFA No. 410 of 2010
Sh.Bhim Lal and others. ...Appellants.
Versus
The Land Acquisition Collector & Another. ...Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2018 21:36:28 :::HCHP
3
RFA No. 390 of 2010 & connected matters
17. RFA No. 411 of 2010
Smt. Sita Devi and Another. ...Appellants.
.
Versus
The Land Acquisition Collector & Another. ...Respondents.
18. RFA No. 412 of 2010
Sh.Vipin Sharma and others. ...Appellants.
Versus
The Land Acquisition Collector & others. ...Respondents.
19. RFA No. 413 of 2010
Sh.Niku Ram and others. ...Appellants.
Versus
The Land Acquisition Collector & Another. ...Respondents.
20. RFA No. 443 of 2010
ACC Limited, Gagal Cement Works, Barmana. ...Appellant.
Versus Anil Kumar and others ...Respondents.
21. RFA No. 444 of 2010ACC Limited, Gagal Cement Works, Barmana. ...Appellant.
Versus Smt.Chinta Devi & Another. ...Respondents.
22. RFA No. 445 of 2010ACC Limited, Gagal Cement Works, Barmana. ...Appellant.
Versus
Chandu and others. ...Respondents.
23. RFA No. 446 of 2010
ACC Limited, Gagal Cement Works, Barmana. ...Appellant.
Versus
Ghamira & Another. ...Respondents.
24. RFA No. 447 of 2010
ACC Limited, Gagal Cement Works, Barmana. ...Appellant.
Versus
Ram Lal & Others. ...Respondents.
25. RFA No. 448 of 2010
ACC Limited, Gagal Cement Works, Barmana. ...Appellant.
Versus Dhani Ram and another. ...Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2018 21:36:28 :::HCHP 4RFA No. 390 of 2010 & connected matters 26. RFA No. 449 of 2010 ACC Limited, Gagal Cement Works, Barmana. ...Appellant.
Versus .
Smt.Kokla Devi & Others. ...Respondents.
27. RFA No. 450 of 2010ACC Limited, Gagal Cement Works, Barmana. ...Appellant.
Versus
Ram Lal & Others. ...Respondents.
28. RFA No. 451 of 2010
ACC Limited, Gagal Cement Works, Barmana. ...Appellant.
Versus Smt.Bohari Devi & Others. ...Respondents.
29. RFA No. 452 of 2010ACC Limited, Gagal Cement Works, Barmana. ...Appellant.
Versus Smt. Jamna Devi & Others. ...Respondents.
30. RFA No. 453 of 2010ACC Limited, Gagal Cement Works, Barmana. ...Appellant.
Versus
Babu Ram & Another. ...Respondents.
31 RFA No. 454 of 2010
ACC Limited, Gagal Cement Works, Barmana. ...Appellant.
Versus Krishan Dass & Another. ...Respondents.
32. RFA No. 455 of 2010ACC Limited, Gagal Cement Works, Barmana. ...Appellant.
Versus Purshottam Dutt & Others. ...Respondents.
33. RFA No. 456 of 2010ACC Limited, Gagal Cement Works, Barmana. ...Appellant.
Versus
Chinta & Others. ...Respondents.
34. RFA No. 457 of 2010
ACC Limited, Gagal Cement Works, Barmana. ...Appellant.
Versus
Kali Dass & Another. ...Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2018 21:36:28 :::HCHP
5
RFA No. 390 of 2010 & connected matters
35. RFA No. 458 of 2010
ACC Limited, Gagal Cement Works, Barmana. ...Appellant.
Versus .
Garja Ram & Another. ...Respondents.
36. RFA No. 459 of 2010ACC Limited, Gagal Cement Works, Barmana. ...Appellant.
Versus
Babu Ram & Others. ...Respondents.
37. RFA No. 460 of 2010
ACC Limited, Gagal Cement Works, Barmana. ...Appellant.
Versus Sh.Rukman & Others.
r ...Respondents.
38. RFA No. 461 of 2010ACC Limited, Gagal Cement Works, Barmana. ...Appellant.
Versus
Sh.Chandu & Others. ...Respondents.
39. RFA No. 462 of 2010
ACC Limited, Gagal Cement Works, Barmana. ...Appellant.
Versus Mohan (deceased) through LRs. & Others. ...Respondents.
40. RFA No. 463 of 2010ACC Limited, Gagal Cement Works, Barmana. ...Appellant.
Versus
Ram Dass & Another. ...Respondents.
41. RFA No. 464 of 2010
ACC Limited, Gagal Cement Works, Barmana. ...Appellant.
Versus Ghanaiya (deceased) through LRs. & Others. ...Respondents.
42. RFA No. 465 of 2010ACC Limited, Gagal Cement Works, Barmana. ...Appellant.
Versus
Beli Ram & another. ...Respondents.
43. RFA No. 466 of 2010
ACC Limited, Gagal Cement Works, Barmana. ...Appellant.
Versus Magni (deceased) through LRs. & Others. ...Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2018 21:36:28 :::HCHP 6RFA No. 390 of 2010 & connected matters 44. RFA No. 467 of 2010 ACC Limited, Gagal Cement Works, Barmana. ...Appellant.
Versus .
Smt. Dev Jani & Others. ...Respondents.
45. RFA No. 468 of 2010ACC Limited, Gagal Cement Works, Barmana. ...Appellant.
Versus Munshi Ram & Another. ...Respondents.
46. RFA No. 469 of 2010ACC Limited, Gagal Cement Works, Barmana. ...Appellant.
Versus Smt.Dilli & Another. ...Respondents.
47. RFA No. 470 of 2010ACC Limited, Gagal Cement Works, Barmana. ...Appellant.
Versus Smt.Fulan Devi & Others. ...Respondents.
48. RFA No. 471 of 2010ACC Limited, Gagal Cement Works, Barmana. ...Appellant.
Versus Smt.Larju Devi & Others. ...Respondents.
49. RFA No. 472 of 2010ACC Limited, Gagal Cement Works, Barmana. ...Appellant.
Versus Sh. Vipin Bihari & Others ...Respondents.
50. RFA No. 473 of 2010ACC Limited, Gagal Cement Works, Barmana. ...Appellant.
Versus Smt.Vidya and others. ...Respondents.
51. RFA No. 474 of 2010ACC Limited, Gagal Cement Works, Barmana. ...Appellant.
Versus
Budhi Ram & Another. ...Respondents.
52. RFA No. 475 of 2010
ACC Limited, Gagal Cement Works, Barmana. ...Appellant.
Versus Ghaniya (deceased) through LRs. & Others. ...Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2018 21:36:28 :::HCHP 7RFA No. 390 of 2010 & connected matters 53. RFA No. 182 of 2011 Gulaba (deceased) through LRs & others. . ...Appellants.
Versus Land Acquisition Collector & Another. ...Respondents .
54. RFA No. 183 of 2011 Babu Ram. ...Appellant.
Versus
Land Acquisition Collector & Another. ...Respondents
55. RFA No. 184 of 2011
Chinta & Others. ...Appellants.
Versus
Land Acquisition Collector & Another. ...Respondents
56. RFA No. 185 of 2011
Babu Ram & Another. ...Appellants.
Versus
Land Acquisition Collector & Another. ...Respondents
57. RFA No. 186 of 2011
Chunka (deceased) through LRs & Others. ...Appellants.
Versus
Land Acquisition Collector & Another. ...Respondents
58. RFA No. 187 of 2011
Dandu (deceased) through LRs & Others. ...Appellants.
Versus
Land Acquisition Collector & Another. ...Respondents
59. RFA No. 188 of 2011
Ram Dass. ...Appellant.
Versus
Land Acquisition Collector & Another. ...Respondents
60. RFA No. 189 of 2011
Beli Ram. ...Appellant.
Versus
Land Acquisition Collector & Another. ...Respondents
61. RFA No. 190 of 2011
Munshi Ram. ...Appellant.
Versus
Land Acquisition Collector & Another. ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
RFA Nos. 390, 370, 391 to 400, 407 to 413 of 2010 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2018 21:36:28 :::HCHP 8 RFA No. 390 of 2010 & connected matters For the Appellant(s): Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr.B.C. Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s): Mr.Shiv Pal Manhans, Additional .
Advocate General with Mr.Raju Ram Rahi, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State.
Mr.K.D. Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr.Shubam Sood, Advocate, for respondent-ACC Limited, Barmana.
RFA Nos. 443 to 475 of 2010 For the Appellant(s): Mr.K.D. Sood, Senior Advocate, with r Mr.Shubham Sood, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s): Mr.Shiv Pal Manhans, Additional Advocate General with Mr.Raju Ram Rahi, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State.
Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr.Romesh Verma & Mr.Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocates, for private respondents.
RFA Nos. 182 to 190 of 2011 For the Appellant(s): Mr.Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s): Mr.Shiv Pal Manhans, Additional Advocate General with Mr.Raju Ram Rahi, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State.
Mr.K.D. Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr.Shubam Sood, Advocate, for respondent-ACC Limited, Barmana.
Vivek Singh Thakur Judge All these appeals arising out of award dated 3.9.2010 passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur (herein after referred to as the Reference Court) in land Reference Petition Nos. 1 of 1987, 49 of 1987, 3 of 1987, 13 of 1987, 18 of 1987, 20 of 1987, 22 of 1987, 23 of 1987, 43 of 1987, 44 of 1987, 45 of 1987, 50 of 1987, 53 of 1987, 2 of 1987, 9 of 1987, 41 of 1987, ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2018 21:36:28 :::HCHP 9 RFA No. 390 of 2010 & connected matters 42 of 1987, 47 of 1987, 55 of 1987, 4 of 1987, 6 of 1987, 8 of 1987, 10 of 1987, 16 of 1987, 21 of 1987, 24 of 1987, 25 of .
1987, 26 of 1987, 27 of 1987, 28 of 1987, 29 of 1987, 31 of 1987, 39 of 1987, have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment, as common question of fact and law, to be considered on the basis of common evidence, is involved.
2. State of Himachal Pradesh, for public purpose, i.e. for mining lime stone by ACC Limited Company, Gagal for production of cement, had initiated acquisition proceedings under Land Acquisition Act (herein after referred to as 'the Act') for acquisition of land in various villages including village Panjgain and Baloh in District Bilaspur by issuing notification dated 7.10.1978 under Section 4 of the Act, which was published in official Gazatte on 21.10.1978. After completing the process under the Act, Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land as under:
"Classification of land Rate per Bigha
1. Anderli Aval Rs.7500.00
2. Anderli Doem Rs.6900.00
3. Bahrli Aval Rs.6200.00
4. Bahrli Doem. Rs.3700.00
5. Khadyater, Banjar Rs.1200.00"
Etc. (un-cultivated.)
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the value of acquired land determined by Land Acquisition Collector, land owners had preferred Reference Petitions under Section 18 of the Act, which were decided by learned Reference Court vide ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2018 21:36:28 :::HCHP 10 RFA No. 390 of 2010 & connected matters award dated 7.11.1998, 4.3.1999 and 6.3.1999. The said awards were assailed before this High Court, which were set .
aside by this High Court in appeals vide judgment dated 30.11.2009, remitting the same back for decision afresh with observation that compensation in these cases cannot be determined on the basis of agricultural quality of land, but has to be adjudicated on the basis of potentiality. Thereafter Reference Court has decided the Reference Petitions afresh vide common impugned award dated 30.9.2010, awarding compensation at a uniform rate of `25,000/- per bigha, irrespective of nature and classification of the land along with all consequential statutory benefits, which has now been assailed by land owners and beneficiary ACC Limited in present appeals. ACC Limited is aggrieved by enhancement of compensation, whereas land owners are claiming that enhanced value of land is still inadequate.
Appeals of land owners
4. There are two sets of appeals preferred by land owners for enhancement of compensation. In one set of appeals, RFA Nos. 370, 390 to 400 and 407 to 413 of 2010, enhancement has been prayed mainly on the ground that Reference Court has completely failed to consider the finding recorded by this High Court in remand order dated 30.11.2009, whereby it has specifically been held that since land in question has been acquired for commercial purpose, therefore, the land in question was to be assessed according to its commercial ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2018 21:36:28 :::HCHP 11 RFA No. 390 of 2010 & connected matters potentiality and not on the basis of assessment carried out as agricultural land and further that Reference Court has committed .
an error by determining the amount of compensation after deducting 30% from the average value arrived at on the basis of sale deeds Ex. PW-4/A and Ex. PW-8/A, as where no development activity is to be undertaken by the beneficiary for utilization of land, no deduction for development charges is permissible and in villages of land owners, facility of modern amenities like road, electricity, telephone, education institutions, health etc. are already available much prior to 1978.
5. In another set of appeals RFA Nos.182 to 190 of 2011, preferred by land owners, enhancement has been sought on the ground that on the basis of sale deed Ex. PW-8/A, value of land becomes `40,000/- per bigha and the land owners, keeping in view the commercial potentiality of the land, are entitled for the same rate and therefore, Reference Court has committed an error by determining the value of land on the basis of average value of sale deeds Ex. PW-4/A and Ex. PW-8/A, that too after making deduction of 30% and further that Reference Court has failed to taken into account the potentiality of the land, more particularly commercial value of the land under acquisition.
Appeals of ACC Limited.
6. ACC Limited, in its appeals bearing RFA Nos. 462 of 2010 to 475 of 2010, has assailed the impugned award on the ground that retail price cannot be considered for determining the wholesale price i.e. price of small chunk of land cannot be the ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2018 21:36:28 :::HCHP 12 RFA No. 390 of 2010 & connected matters price for large chunk of land and sites of buildings could not be of the same potentialities of land, which is ghasni, barron, rocky .
and hilly in nature and there is no reliable and trustworthy exemplars transaction on record, so as to determine the value of acquired land @ 25,000/- per bigha, particularly when potentiality of land had already been taken into consideration by the Reference court in another case, wherein flat rate of `15000/- per bigha was awarded and further that the sale transactions Ex. PW-4/A and Ex. PW-8/A are created sale deeds for establishing the higher value of land after gaining knowledge about the possibility of acquisition of land for survey being conducted by ACC Limited to obtain prospective mining lease in the area and that the awards of different villages announced by the Reference Court cannot be taken into consideration for determination of value of land in present case. Further that the Reference Court has also failed to take into consideration the fact that apart from compensation, one member from the family whose land had been acquired, has been given employment by ACC Limited by way of additional compensation, besides providing medical and other facilities such as roads, schools, quarters etc. and finally that Reference Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and its findings are based on misreading and mis-appreciation of evidence.
7. Learned District Judge has passed the impugned award after considering the entire evidence lead by parties in various land reference petitions. Land owners have relied upon ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2018 21:36:28 :::HCHP 13 RFA No. 390 of 2010 & connected matters sale deeds Ex. PW-4/A, Ex. PW-6/A (in reference petition No. 42 of 1987, Devjani Vs. LAC), Ex. PW-7/A, Ex. PW-8/A, Ex.PX and .
Ex.P-1 (in land reference petition No. 4 of 1987, Mari Devi Vs. LAC) and Ex. P-5 (in land reference petition No. 42 of 1987, Jagannath through LRs. Dev Jani Vs. LAC) and have also put reliance upon awards Ex. PZ, Ex. PZ/1, Ex. PA (in land reference petition No. 4 of 1987, Mari Devi Vs. LAC), Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-7. Geological reports Ex. PW-10/A and Ex. PW-10/B, site plan of location Ex. PW-10/C and Ex. PW-10/D have also been relied upon by land owners to prove the utility and potentiality of land under acquisition. Whereas, respondents have relied upon sale deeds Ex. RA, Ex. RC, Ex. RE, Ex. RG, Ex. RH (in land reference petition No. 42 of 1987, Jagannath through LRs. Dev Jai Vs. LAC), Ex. RI, Ex. R-15 (in land reference petition No. 27 of 1987, Mohan Vs. LAC) and award Ex. RA (in land reference petition No. 42 of 1987, Jagannath through LRS. Dev Jani Vs. LAC). Various other documents including copies of mutations and aks tatima, attested in pursuance to sale deeds relied upon by the parties, have also been relied upon by land owners as well as beneficiary ACC Limited, which are of no relevance for the purpose of determination of market value of the land under acquisition.
8. As per provisions of Section 25 of the Act, the Reference Court cannot determine the value of acquired land at a rate lesser than the rate awarded by Land Acquisition Collector. In present case, the highest value determined by ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2018 21:36:28 :::HCHP 14 RFA No. 390 of 2010 & connected matters Land Acquisition Collector is `7,500/- per bigha and in the light of aforesaid provisions of the Act, the value of acquired land cannot .
be determined below `7,500/- per bigha.
9. It is no longer res-integra that when the land is acquired for a purpose of single use, which has no relevance with the nature and classification of land on the basis of its agricultural potentiality, its value is not to be determined on the basis of its nature and classification, but has to be determined on the basis of purpose for which it has to be put in utilization after acquisition, considering the entire land as a single unit, resulting awarding of uniform rate to all kind of land acquired. (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).
10. Award Ex. RA relied upon by ACC Limited pertains to compensation assessed by Land Acquisition Collector with respect to trees, but not to the land and therefore, the same has rightly been discarded by learned Reference Court being irrelevant for determining the value of acquired land.
11. Sale deeds relied upon by ACC Limited pertains to village Panjgain, land of which village is under acquisition. Sale deeds Ex. RE, Ex. RI and Ex. R-15 are dated 4.9.1976, 19.8.1976 and 7.5.1976, which were executed more than two years prior to issuance of notification dated 21.10.1978, ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2018 21:36:28 :::HCHP 15 RFA No. 390 of 2010 & connected matters therefore, these deeds are not having any proximity of time with the notification under Section 4 of the Act. Even otherwise, if .
these sale deeds are taken into consideration, then value of land as per these sale deeds becomes either `2,000/- per bigha or less than `1,000/- per bigha, which is lower than the highest value of land determined by Land Acquisition Collector.
12. Sale deeds Ex. RA, Ex. RC, Ex. RG and Ex. RH are dated 15.6.1978, 3.5.1978, 29.3.1978 and 15.6.1978. These sale deeds are proximate in time with notification under Section 4 of the Act, however, again value of land as per these sale deeds becomes ranging from `650/- per bigha to `2,000/- per bigha. The said value, being lesser than the highest value determined by the Land Acquisition Collector, cannot be made ground for determining the compensation of land under acquisition. The findings returned by learned District Judge in this regard do not warrant any interference.
13. Sale deeds Ex. PX and Ex. P-1 (in land reference petition No. 4 of 1987, Mari Devi Vs. LAC) are dated 17.2.1993 and 9.12.1986, having no proximity in time with notification under Section 4 of the Act, as these sale deeds have been executed after 15 years and 8 years of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act.
14. Sale deeds Ex. PW-6/A (in reference petition No. 42 of 1987, Devjani Vs. LAC), Ex. PW-7/A and Ex. P-5 (in land reference petition No. 42 of 1987, Jagannath through LRs. Dev Jani Vs. LAC), were executed in the year 1978, prior to issuance ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2018 21:36:28 :::HCHP 16 RFA No. 390 of 2010 & connected matters of notification and to prove these sale deeds and similarity and potentiality of land involved in these sale deeds with acquired .
land, vendor/vendee have also been examined by land owners.
Scrutiny of their deposition reveals that PW-6 Chhoto (examined in Reference Petition No. 53 of 1987, Nagru through Anil Kumar Vs. LAC) and PW-3 Fitho (examined in Reference Petition No. 42 of 1987, Jagannath through LRs. Dev Jani Vs. LAC), vendor and vendee in sale deed Ex. PW-6/A were none else, but mother and daughter, who have admitted that no sale consideration was paid either before Sub Registrar or in presence of witnesses. In sale deed Ex. PW-7/A vendor PW-7 Balak Ram has admitted that vendee in the said sale deed was his real sister and that no sale consideration was paid either in presence of Sub Registrar or before witnesses to the execution of the sale deed. Similarly, in sale deed Ex. P-5, PW-5 Janku has sold land to Gandhi and in this case also no sale consideration was exchanged between vendor and vendee in presence of Sub Registrar or any witnesses. PW-5 Janku in his cross-examination has also admitted that vendee Gandhi is his god brother. Therefore, learned District Judge has rightly concluded that these sale deeds were sham transaction but not genuine to be relied upon to determine the value of land.
15. It is now settled legal position that the award of Reference Court relating to the same village of similar land possessed of same quality of land and potentiality, in absence of any tangible material on record as regards the distinctive ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2018 21:36:28 :::HCHP 17 RFA No. 390 of 2010 & connected matters features of differentiation between the quality of land, subject matter of award and land under acquisition, offers a comparable .
base for determination of compensation. (See Special Land Acquisition Officer Kheda and another Vs. Vasudev Chandrashankar and another, (1997) 11 SCC 218).
16. It is also settled law that in absence of exemplar transactions of the same village, exemplar transactions of adjoining villages can be taken into consideration and in case there is evidence on record with regard to similarity of nature, utility and potentiality of land, then same value of land of the said village can be determined and in case there is no evidence with regard to similarity of nature, utility and potentiality of land, the exemplar transactions of adjoining village can be taken into consideration, but the value of the land cannot be determined to be the same and keeping in view the surrounding circumstances, the value of land can be determined after making appropriate deductions. (See Jai Prakash and others Vs. Union of India (1997) 9 SCC 510, Kanwar Singh and others Vs. Union of India (1998) 8 SCC 136 & Manoj Kumar Vs. State of Haryana 2017 SCC Online SC 1262).
17. Award Ex. PZ passed by learned Reference Court, in another instance of acquisition of land for ACC Limited, on 29.4.1995 pertains to the acquisition proceedings initiated on 1.10.1992, i.e. fourteen years after the notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case and thus the same is not proximate in time to case in hand, which is a necessary condition ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2018 21:36:28 :::HCHP 18 RFA No. 390 of 2010 & connected matters for comparing and determining the value of land under acquisition. Award Ex. P-7 dated 20.9.1985 pertains to .
acquisition proceedings initiated vide notification dated 23.11.1978 issued under Section 4 of the Act and proximate in time to the notification under Section 4 of the Act in present case. The said award pertains to a different village i.e. village Bhater and Nalag. Similarly, in award Ex. PZ/1, land pertaining to village Nalag is involved and further the value of land in the said award was determined keeping in view the agricultural quality of the land, whereas in present case value of land, as also observed by this Court at the time of remanding the matters in earlier appeal(s) to learned District Judge, valuation of land is to be determined on the basis of potentiality and not on the basis of agricultural quality. Similarly, for the same reason, award Ex.
P-1 pertaining to village Dhaun Kothi, a different village, wherein also value of land was determined on the basis of agricultural quality, cannot be considered for assessing the value of land in present case. Another award Ex. PA (in Mari Devi) dated 30.5.1992, despite related to the same village Panjgain and Baloh, is also not relevant in present case, as in the said award also value of land was determined on the basis of agricultural quality. Therefore, learned District Judge was justified in ignoring the aforesaid awards for determining the value of land under acquisition in present case.
18. Sale deed Ex. PW-4/A dated 3.4.1978 involving transfer of 1 biswa land for `1500/- between PW-4 Ram Nath ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2018 21:36:28 :::HCHP 19 RFA No. 390 of 2010 & connected matters (vendor) and PW-5 Tilak Raj (vendee) pertains to the village Panjgain and sale deed Ex. PW-8/A dated 24.4.1978 pertaining .
to the same village, proved on record by vendor PW-8 Amar Nath, involves 2 biswa of land sold for `4,000/-. These deeds are only exemplar sale deeds which can be taken into consideration for determining the value of land as there is nothing on record to suspect their genuineness and these sale deeds are proximate in time being executed within six months prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, learned District Judge has rightly concluded that sale deeds Ex.
PW-4/A and Ex. PW-8/A are the only exemplar sale deeds, which are proximate in time to the notification under Section 4 of the Act in present case and can be taken into consideration for determining the value of land.
19. In present appeals land pertains to two villages i.e. Panjgain and Baloh is involved. The exemplar sale deeds Ex.
PW-4/A and Ex. PW-8/A and also all other sale deeds relied upon either by land owners or ACC Limited, pertains to village Panjgain only. As discussed supra, the value of land determined for acquisition of land in adjoining village can be awarded on establishing the similarity of nature, quality and potentiality of the land with the same.
20. In present case PW-11 Dev Raj Patwari has deposed that village Baloh and village Panjgain are adjoining to each other and potentiality and quality of acquired land in both villages is almost similar. Depositions of Ranu in reference ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2018 21:36:28 :::HCHP 20 RFA No. 390 of 2010 & connected matters petition No. 53 of 1987, (Nagru through Anil Kumar Vs. LAC), petitioner Jagarnath in reference petition No. 42 of 1987 .
(Jagannath through LRs. Dev Jani Vs. LAC) and Pohlo Ram Power of Attorney of Madi Devi in reference petition No. 4 of 1987 (Madi Devi Vs. LAC) have also substantiated the claim of land owners. It is admitted fact that land of both villages has been acquired for the same purpose i.e. for the purpose of mining and the lime stone in the acquired land is useful for manufacturing cement. Similarly, nature and potentiality of land viz-a-viz the purpose for which it has been acquired, has also been substantiated from the report Ex. PW-10/A and geological map Ex. PW-10/B proved on record by Geologist PW-10 Rajnish Sharma, wherein lime stone area has been depicted in both villages, which is to be extracted for utilization in cement factory at Barmana. Therefore, there is ample evidence on record to consider that the nature, utility and potentiality of the acquired land in Baloh village is similar to that of land in village Panjgain.
The said fact is further established from the fact that Collector has also awarded the identical value to the acquired land in both the villages. Therefore, similarity of nature, quality and potentiality of land acquired in both villages i.e. Panjgain and Baloh has been established on record and thus value of land in both villages is identical.
21. Sale deeds Ex. PW-4/A and Ex. PW-8/A pertains to the land situated in village Panjgain have been executed on 3.4.1978 and 24.4.1978, respectively and as such they are ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2018 21:36:28 :::HCHP 21 RFA No. 390 of 2010 & connected matters proximate in time to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act and there is also proximity of location of land under .
acquisition and subject matter of the sale deeds, having the same value and potentiality. As per sale deed Ex. PW-4/A, value of land is `30,000/- per bigha, whereas according to sale deed Ex. PW-8/A, value of land is `40,000/- per bigha. These are only two exemplar sale deeds, which can be taken into consideration for determining the value of land, as there is no impediment to rely upon these sale deeds like other exemplar sale deeds and awards relied upon by the parties. On the basis of these sale deeds average value of the land is `35,000/- per bigha.
22. The Apex Court in Bhikulal Kedarmal Goenka Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2016) 14 SCC 279, has held that deduction from the determined market value of acquired land, towards development charges, is not warranted when no development required to be made for implementation of public purpose, for which land is acquired. It is also held by the Apex Court in Land Acquisition Officer Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittor Vs. L. Kamalamma (Smt.) dead by LRs and others K. Krishnamachari and others (1998) 2 SCC 385, that when no sales of large chunks of comparable land are available, even land transactions in respect of smaller extent of land can be taken note for determining the price of acquired land by making appropriate deductions, such as, for development of land by providing enough space for development of land to be carried on ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2018 21:36:28 :::HCHP 22 RFA No. 390 of 2010 & connected matters by the beneficiary like construction of roads, sewers, drains, expenses involved in formation of a layout. In Atma Singh .
(dead) through LRs. and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2008) 2 SCC 568, the Apex Court has held that for assessing the market value of the land, the potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration and potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or developing into state of actuality and market value of a property has to be determined having due regards to its existing advantages and its potential possibility when utilized in its most advantageous manner.
23. The Apex Court after putting reliance on its earlier pronouncement in Trishala Jain Vs. State of Uttranchal (2011) 6 SCC 47, in Vithal Rao and another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2017) 8 SCC 558, has held that for determining the true market value of the acquired land and especially when the acquired land is a large chunk of undeveloped land, it is the just and reasonable to make appropriate deduction towards expenses for development of acquired land and deductions should be made keeping in mind the nature of land, area under acquisition, whether the land is developed or not and, if so, to what extent, the purpose of acquisition, etc. It has also been held that while determining the market value of large chunk of land, when sale deeds of larger parcel of land are not available, the value of smaller piece of land can be taken into consideration after making proper deduction in ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2018 21:36:28 :::HCHP 23 RFA No. 390 of 2010 & connected matters the value of lands. It is further held that the Court should also take into consideration the potentiality of acquired land apart .
from other relevant considerations and the Court can always apply reasonable amount of guesswork to balance the equities in order to fix a just and fair market value in terms of parameters specified under Section 23 of the Act.
24. Relying on judgments of the Apex Court in The Collector of Lakhimpur Vs. Bhuban Chandra Dutta, AIR 1971 SC 2015 and Kaushalya Devi Bogra and others etc. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer Aurangabad and another, AIR 1984 SC 892, this High Court in State of H.P. and another Vs. Sanjeev Kumar and another 2010(2) S.L.J. (HP) 1225, which has also been relied upon by the Reference Court, has held that deduction of about 30% was permitted for determining the market value of large property on the basis of sale transaction of smaller property.
25. In a recent judgment Maya Devi (D) through LRs and others Vs. State of Haryana & Another JT 2018 (1) SC 495, the Apex Court has approved deduction of 1/3, where exemplar was for a small extent of land and the acquired land has to be developed for construction of warehouse.
26. In sale deeds Ex. PW-4/A and Ex. PW-8/A small chunks of land have been transferred, whereas large chunks of land belonging to land owners have been acquired by the ACC Limited. Therefore, on this count there should be some reasonable deductions from the value of land arrived at on the ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2018 21:36:28 :::HCHP 24 RFA No. 390 of 2010 & connected matters basis of transactions of small chunk of land. But at the same time in present case, it is also to be considered that value of land .
is not to be determined on the basis of its potentiality for utilization of land for agricultural purposes or house building, but the potentiality of land is to be assessed keeping in view its utility to the purpose for which it has been acquired. Admittedly, the land under acquisition in present appeals has been acquired for extraction of lime stone for production of cement. No doubt for conversion of lime stone into cement involves a process to be undertaken in Cement Plant, but so far as use of extracted lime stone is concerned, i.e. to be used in the same form in which it is extracted from the land and except extraction, no other special process except crushing is required to be undertaken for using the said extracted lime stone whereas after conversion of this lime stone into cement, its value is converted number of times higher than the value of lime stone used for its production.
Therefore, no deduction on account of development charges is to be made in present case, rather value of land is to be determined by adding its potentiality of yielding lime stone for the purpose of production of cement in the value determined on the basis of sale deeds Ex. PW-4/A and Ex. PW-8/A, wherein the transaction of land was not for a commercial purpose like extraction of lime stone.
27. The contention of ACC Limited that the exemplar sale deeds are sham transactions and have been executed only for exaggeration of price of land for getting higher compensation ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2018 21:36:28 :::HCHP 25 RFA No. 390 of 2010 & connected matters for acquisition of land is also not substantiated from the evidence, especially deposition of RW-1 Subash Sharma, on .
record. Acquired land is situated in village Panjgain and Baloh, whereas, according to his statement the survey was conducted for determining the lime stone for manufacturing of cement in Gagal Dhar, Bilaspur and after the recommendation in the year 1975, prospecting lisence was issued in favour of ACC by the State, whereafter drilling operations in Gagal Dhar was also undertaken to extract sample of lime stone before applying for industrial lisence to the Government of India. Though RW-1 has stated that inhabitants of locality regarding establishment of ACT Factory in the area were informed by him, but there is no corresponding corroborative documents/evidence including alleged survey conducted by RW-1 or any other paper establishing his visits in villages Panjgain and Baloh, to substantiate his statement. There is nothing on record to doubt the genuineness of sale deeds Ex. PW-4/A and Ex. PW-8/A.
28. Potentiality of acquired land for yielding lime stone for which purpose the land has been acquired, has been proved on record by PW-10 Rajnish Sharma, Geologist of Industrial Department, who has placed on record his report Ex. PW-10/A and geological map Ex. PW-10/B, including that the entire land under acquisition is lime stone area. Therefore, definitely the value on the basis of potentiality of acquired land is to be added in the average value of the land acquired on the basis of sale deeds Ex. PW-4/A and Ex. PW-8/A. ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2018 21:36:28 :::HCHP 26 RFA No. 390 of 2010 & connected matters
29. In my opinion, on the basis of potentiality of land, particularly keeping in view the purpose of acquisition, it would .
be appropriate to add 15% in the value of land determined in ordinary course. In case it is added in value of land i.e. `35,000/- per bigha arrived at on the basis of average of Ex. PW-
4/A and Ex. PW-8/A, value of land becomes `40,250/- per bigha.
However, for the reason that sale deeds Ex. PW-4/A and Ex.
PW-8/A are transactions of small chunk of land, the value of acquired land requires to be determined after making deduction in the value arrived at on the basis of these sale transactions.
Learned District Judge has allowed deductions of 30% on the basis of pronouncement of this Court in State of H.P. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar 2010 (2) SLJ HP 1225 (supra). The Apex Court, as discussed supra, has permitted 1/3 deduction for transfer of small extent of land in comparison to large chunk of acquired land and where some development work is required to be undertaken by the beneficiary. Whereas, in present case, no development work is to be undertaken by the beneficiary, therefore, deduction of 30% is on higher side. But at the same time, it is also to be considered that land involved in Ex. PW-4/A and Ex. PW-8/A is one biswa and two biswas respectively which is too small chunk in comparison to chunks under acquisition. It is also true that chunk of acquired land for comparison is to be considered on the basis of land of each land owner and not entire land under acquisition. But even then plots of one biswa and two biswas involved in exemplar deeds are too small.
::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2018 21:36:28 :::HCHP 27RFA No. 390 of 2010 & connected matters Considering the entire evidence on record, it would be appropriate to have deductions of 25%. Deductions for small .
chunk land, where the deductions of small chunk is made and addition of value on the basis of potential related to the purpose, for which land has been acquired, is to be made for quality of lime stone available in the land and it would be appropriate to add 15% value of land calculated on the basis of sale deeds Ex.
PW-4/A and Ex. PW-8/A. As such, after making deduction of 25% in the value of `35,000/- per bigha, value of land comes to `26,250/- per bigha and with further addition of 15%, keeping in view potential, value of land comes to `30,187/- per bigha, which in round figure will be `30,000/- per bigha.
30. In view of above discussion, land owners are held entitled for compensation at the rate of `30,000/- per bigha along with statutory benefits including interest thereon and accordingly, appeals of land owners bearing RFA Nos. 370, 390 to 400, 407 to 413 of 2010 and RFA Nos. 182 to 190 of 2011 are allowed and appeals preferred by ACC Limited bearing RFA Nos. 443 to 475 of 2011 are dismissed in aforesaid terms. No order to costs. Record be sent back.
(Vivek Singh Thakur), th 24 August, 2018 Judge.
(KRS) ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2018 21:36:28 :::HCHP