Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Land Acquisition Collector vs Land Acquisition Collector on 13 August, 2021
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.111 OF 2013
Between:-
THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR,
SHAHNEHAR, FATEHPUR, TEHSIL
FATEHPUR DISTT.KANGRA, HP
......APPELLANT
(BY SH.SUDHIR BHATNAGAR,
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL,
SH.NARENDER THAKUR, & SH.R.P. SINGH,
DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERALS.)
AND
SH.BISHAMBER DASS S/O SH.RANJHU RAM,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & MOUZA CHHABBER,
TEHSIL FATEHPUR, DISTT. KANGRA (HP)
......RESPONDENT
(BY GAURAV GAUTAM, ADVOCATE)
Whether approved for reporting ?
This appeal coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
By way of instant appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), challenge has been laid to award dated 21.01.2012, passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala in ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:52:51 :::CIS 2 Reference Case RBT No.365-K/200/2006, titled as: Bishamber Dass vs. Land Acquisition Collector, alongwith other connected Land Reference petitions, as described in the award.
.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
3. It is not in dispute that the suit land belonging to the claimant-respondent, came to be acquired for public purpose;
namely construction of Shah Nehar Project and acquisition proceedings commenced with the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act on 13.09.2000.
r The Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'LAC') passed award No.25, dated 20.1.2003 and awarded compensation of the acquired land as per the classification of the land mentioned in the award.
4. Claimant, who is respondent in this appeal, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by 'LAC', preferred Reference Case RBT No.365- K/200/2006 (supra) under Section 18 of the Act, before the learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., seeking therein enhancement of compensation. Learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala vide impugned award dated 21.01.2012, re-determined the market value of entire land irrespective of classification on uniform ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:52:51 :::CIS 3 basis and awarded a sum of Rs.7.5 lacs per hectare as per detail given in the impugned award.
5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned .
award dated 21.01.2012, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. in Reference Petition No.365-K/2010/2006 (supra), having been filed under Section 18 of the Act, appellant-State has approached this Court for setting aside the same.
6. It is not in dispute before this Court that similar situate claimants, whose r land also came to be acquired for construction of Shah Nehar Project in the acquisition proceedings commenced with the publication of Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, had filed land reference petitions before the learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, praying therein to enhance the compensation awarded by 'LAC', in its award dated 20.01.2003. Those reference petitions were clubbed and disposed of by a common award passed in Reference Case RBT No.365-K/200/2006 (supra), wherein the Reference Court re-determined the market value of entire land irrespective of classification on uniform basis and awarded a sum of Rs.7.5 lacs per hectare, which has been reaffirmed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 01.06.2016 in RFA No.953 of 2012-C, titled as: Land Acquisition Collector & Another vs. Jatinder ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:52:51 :::CIS 4 Singh, (for short "Jatinder Singh's case") alongwith connected matters.
7. Mr.Gaurav Gautam, learned counsel representing .
the respondent-claimant, while placing reliance upon the judgment passed in RFA No.953 of 2012-C (supra), contended that this appeal also deserves to be dismissed, in terms of aforesaid judgment, because undisputedly claimant in the case at hand alongwith the claimants in the aforesaid references/cases were awarded compensation vide a common award. He further argued that since this Court had upheld the findings of Reference Court, returned in the aforesaid Reference Petitions, therefore, the claimant in in this appeal is also entitled to market value of entire acquired land as done by Reference Court.
8. Mr.Narender Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, representing appellant-State, while fairly acknowledging the factum with regard to passing of judgment in RFA No.953 of 2012-C (supra), was not able to refute the fact that claimant-respondent in this appeal is also entitled to enhanced market value of acquired land, as has been held in Reference Case RBT No.365-K/2010/2006, which was the basis for enhancing the compensation in the award under challenge in this appeal, and which has further been upheld by ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:52:51 :::CIS 5 this Court in RFA No.953 of 2012-C alongwith other connected matters.
9. Consequently, in view of aforesaid discussion as .
well as fair stand adopted by Mr.Narender Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, representing the appellant-State, present appeal is dismissed and it is ordered that directions contained in RFA No.953 of 2012-C, titled as: Land Acquisition Collector & Another vs. Jatinder Singh, shall mutatis mutandis apply to the present cases also.
10. Appellant-State is directed to deposit the entire award amount in the Registry of this Court within a period of eight weeks from today, if not already deposited.
11. Interim order, if any, is vacated. All the miscellaneous applications are disposed of.
August 13, 2021 (Sandeep Sharma)
(aks) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:52:51 :::CIS