Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P. And Others vs The Land Acquisition Collector on 31 July, 2018
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, .
SHIMLA RFA No. 243 of 2001.
Reserved on : 17th July, 2018
Date of Decision: 31st July, 2018.
Shiv Ram and others
r to
Versus
State of H.P. and others
....Appellants.
...Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Appellant(s): Mr. G.D. Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate.
For respondent No.1 &2:Mr. Hemant Vaid, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Y.S. Thakur and Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Dy. A.Gs.
For Respondent No.3: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Soma Thakur, Advocate.
_____________________________________________________ Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
The instant RFA is directed, against, the award pronounced upon Land Reference Petition No. 213 ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2018 22:57:56 :::HCHP ...2...
of 1999/93, on 19.04.2001, by the learned Reference .
Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing, for, the appellant(s) has with much vigour contended (i) that with this Court making a decision upon RFA No. 15 of 2002 along therewith apt connected RFAs, (ii) and when the land of the land owners r therein, stands, acquired under an apposite notification, hence, holding commonality with the extant notification, (iii) thereupon, the verdict recorded upon RFA No. 15 of 2002, titled as Lachhu Ram vs. The Land Acquisition Collector (Nathpa Jhakri) & others, reported in Latest HLJ 2013 (HP), 1332, being applicable on all fronts, vis-à-
vis, the hereat lis.
3. Accepting the aforesaid submission, this Court, proceeds to inconsonance therewith assess, vis-
à-vis, the building(s), of, the landowners herein, 30% increase vis-à-vis the evaluations, if any, made qua their buildings. The aforesaid meteing of 30 % increase ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2018 22:57:56 :::HCHP ...3...
would be in apt concurrence, with, paragraph No.85, of, .
the decision of this Court rendered in Lachhu Ram's case (supra), paragraph whereof stand extracted hereinafter:-
"85. Consequently, in view of the discussion and analysis made hereinabove, all the appeals and crossobjections are disposed of accordingly. Only those claimants, whose buildings have been evaluated, are entitled to 30% increase towards compensation for the acquisition of their building(s) on the basis of the reports of PW-7 Jitender Kumar, PW-9 Bachiter Singh and PW-11 Lalit Kumar. The claimants are also entitled to 30% increase towards the acquisition of fruit-bearing trees. The appellant in RFA No. 282/2001 is entitled to Rs. 1,30,000/- per bigha. Claimant in RFA No. 286/2001 is entitled to Rs. one lakh per bigha on the basis of compromise referred to hereinabove. These amounts shall carry statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The amount is ordered to be paid to the claimants, within a period of eight weeks from today, by the respondents. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs."
4. Furthermore, the landowners herein, are also, vis-à-vis the valuations, if any, made qua their fruit bearing trees, hence occurring upon the acquired land, rather entitled, to, 30 % increase, qua the apt valuation.
::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2018 22:57:56 :::HCHP...4...
The aforesaid meteing of 30 pre centum increase qua .
the apt valuation made, with respect to the fruit bearing trees, hence occurring upon the land(s), of, the landowners, would, also squarely hence bear consonance with apt paragraph No.78, of, the verdict of this Court, rendered in in Lachhu Ram's case (supra), paragraph whereof stand extracted hereinafter:-
"78. Similarly, now, the court has to determine the compensation for fruit bearing and non-fruit bearing trees. It has come in the standing order No. 28 that the value of the house and trees standing in the land has also to be worked out. Initially, these are worked out by the Department concerned. The compensation for fruit bearing/non-fruit-bearing trees is to be determined as per Harbans Singh Formula and Appendix-C of para 28.9 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Records Manual. The Harbans Singh Formula was prepared in the year 1966, but while allowing the compensation, the inflationary trends have not been taken into consideration. The Division Bench of this Court in 1988 (1) Shim.L.C. 479 has taken into consideration the inflationary trends on the basis of price index. According to PW-2 Sh. Pratap Singh, Horticulture Development Officer, Harbans Singh formula was prepared in the year 1966. The compensation is paid on the basis of 1966 formula, but no price escalation was given. According to him, ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2018 22:57:56 :::HCHP ...5...
the valuation of the trees was undertaken by the .
Department on the basis of Harbans Singh formula prepared in the year 1966. While determining the valuation, the escalation of the price from 1966 to 1988 has not been taken into consideration. PW-6 Sh. R.P. Negi, Senior Clerk, Forest Division has deposed that his Department does not prepare rate of broad leaves trees. The Department has only taken fuel rates, which are duly approved by the Managing Director of the Himachal Pradesh Forest Corporation on the basis of the recommendations of the Committee constituted by the State Government. The statement of PW-8 Tulsi Ram, Range Officer, is only about the broad leaves trees and not with regard to fruit-bearing trees. RW-1 Shankar Dass has also deposed that the fruit-bearing trees have been assessed on the basis of 1966 Harbans Singh formula. The known method for calculating the market value of the trees is on the basis of its yield. However, in the case of fruit bearing trees yield has not been given, but still the claimants are entitled to reasonable compensation for fruit bearing trees on the basis of Harbans Singh formula and after taking into consideration inflationary trends/rise in price index. In case the inflationary trends are taken into consideration from 1966 after applying the Harbans Singh formula till the date of notification, the claimants are entitled to 30% increase in the compensation towards the acquisition of fruit-bearing trees standing on their land."::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2018 22:57:56 :::HCHP
...6...
5. However, at this stage, the learned counsel .
appearing for the landowners, has contended with much vigour, that, the learned reference Court, (a) has failed to despite evidence standing adduced, assess compensation vis-à-vis the apt loss of business, (b) evidence whereof is comprised in Ex. P-1 to Ex.P-3, (c) thereupon, the non quantification, of compensation by the learned Reference Court, vis-à-vis, the loss of business, as, encumbered upon the landowners, arising, from the acquisition, of, their apt commercial establishment(s), wherein, they were earlier running hence profitable business, rather warranting interference. However, the aforesaid submission cannot be accepted, (d) as the aforestated submission, was, never made by the landowners, before the Land Acquisition Collector, rather it was only reared before the Reference Court. Consequently, the non rearing by the landowners, of, the aforesaid propagation, before the Collector concerned, and, theirs rearing it, subsequently ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2018 22:57:56 :::HCHP ...7...
before the Reference Court, cannot, equip them to .
argue, qua hence any gross error standing committed by the Land Acquisition Collector, in his omitting to make the aforesaid assessment of compensation, (e) rather the endeavour made by the landowners before the learned Reference Court, is amenable to suffer rejection, given, adequate, just, fair and reasonable compensation, under, all the permissible heads, standing assessed, vis-à-vis, the landowners, (f) and, pertinently, with the learned counsel appearing for the landowners, not placing on record, any authoritative pronouncement recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court, carrying, an, apt expostulation of law qua despite just, fair and reasonable compensation standing awarded, vis-à-vis, their lands and properties, theirs being yet entitled, for, compensation qua loss of business, as, purportedly encumbered upon them, given the apt commercial establishments being hence acquired.
::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2018 22:57:56 :::HCHP...8...
6. However, at this stage, the learned counsel .
appearing for the landowners has submitted that the learned Reference Court, has not assessed just and reasonable compensation, with respect to their lands put to acquisition, yet, after going through the record, this Court, finds that the quantification of compensation made, in a sum of Rs. One lac per bigha, by the learned Reference Court vis-à-vis the acquired land, rather not warranting any interference.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal stands disposed off, in the aforesaid manner.
Consequently, the impugned award is modified to the aforesaid extent, and, thereon the landowners shall be entitled to all statutory benefits. No costs. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.
(Sureshwar Thakur) st 31 July, 2018. Judge.
(jai) ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2018 22:57:56 :::HCHP