Himachal Pradesh High Court
Khem Raj vs State Of H.P. & Another on 19 May, 2023
Author: Sushil Kukreja
Bench: Sushil Kukreja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFAs No. 477, 478 & 480 of .
2015, 130, 182 and 239 of 2016 Reserved on: 20.04.2023 Date of decision: 19.05.2023 ________________________________________________
1. RFA No. 477 of 2015:
Khem Raj .....Appellant.
Versus
State of H.P. & another ......
Respondents.
2. RFA No. 478 of 2015:
Munshi Ram .....Appellant.
Versus
State of H.P. & another ......
Respondents.
3. RFA No. 480 of 2015:
Prem Lal .....Appellant.
Versus
State of H.P. & another ......
Respondents.
4. RFA No. 130 of 2016:
State of Himachal Pradesh & another .....Appellants.
Versus
Khem Raj ......Respondent.
5. RFA No. 182 of 2016:
State of Himachal Pradesh & another .....Appellants.
Versus
Prem Lal & another ......Respondents.
6. RFA No. 239 of 2016:
::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2023 21:06:56 :::CIS
2
State of Himachal Pradesh & another .....Appellants.
Versus
Munshi Ram & others ......Respondents.
________________________________________________ .
Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
1Whether approved for reporting?
In RFAs No. 477, 478 & 480 of 2015:
For the appellant(s): Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents/State: Mr. B.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.
In RFAs No. 130, 182 & 239 of 2016:
For the appellants/State: Mr. B.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.
For the respondent(s): Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate.
Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
Since all these petitions are offshoots of Award dated 20.07.2015, passed by learned District Judge, Shimla, and pertain to land(s), which was/were acquired by Public Works Department of the State of H.P., for construction of Bhanjan-Ghati-Chanawag Road in the year 2010 and Shananghati-Dargi-Macheriyan Link Road in the year 2009, they are being taken up together for disposal.
2. The brief facts of the cases are that land, description thereof is as under, was acquired by the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2023 21:06:56 :::CIS 3respondents/State for the purpose of construction of roads:
Sr. No. Case No. and title Description of the land and purpose of acquisition of the case .
1. RFA No. 477 of Land comprised in Khasra No. 186, measuring 0-
2015, title Khem 06-27 hectares, situated in Mauza Sainj, Tehsil Raj vs. State of Sunni District Shimla, H.P. H.P. & another. Acquired for construction of Shananghati-Dargi-
Macheriyan Road.
2. RFA No. 480 of Land comprised in Khasra No. 743/1/744/1, 746/1, 2015, title Prem 747/1 total measuring 0-9-62 hectares, situated in Lal & another vs. village Dawaroo, Tehsil Sunni District Shimla, State of H.P. & H.P. another Acquired for construction of Banjan-Ghati-
Chanawag Road.
3. RFA No. 478 of Land comprised in Khasra No. 21/1, 32/1, 33/1, 2015, title Munshi 706/1, 713/1, 720/1, 739/1, 739/2, 741/1 and Ram & others vs. 753/1, total measuring 0-17-88 hectares, situated State of H.P. & in village Dawaroo, Tehsil Sunni, District Shimla, anotherq H.P. Acquired for construction of Banjan-Ghati- Chanawag Road.
Proceedings qua acquisition of the aforesaid land was started by the respondents and notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short "the Act") was issued in this regard on 01.01.2010. Thereafter, proceedings under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act were initiated and finally on 16.02.2012 award was passed. The petitioners/claimants, who are appellants in RFAs No. 477, 478 and 480 of 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the claimants"), being dissatisfied with the assessment of the land by the Land Acquisition Collector, maintained petitions before the Land Acquisition ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2023 21:06:56 :::CIS 4 Collector, which were sent to the learned Reference Court (District Judge, Shimla), for adjudication. The claimants .
contended before the Reference Court that the Land Acquisition Collector had not assessed the proper value of the acquired land. The claimants further contended that the land situated near their acquired land was acquired for construction of Kol Dam Project by the NTPC and value thereof was pleaded more than 20,00,000/- per bigha. As per the claimants, the Land Acquisition Collector wrongly assessed the land, considering the kind of the land and the land should have been assessed irrespective of kind and quality of the land. The claimants sought enhancement of compensation by increasing the value of the acquired land, as pleaded by them.
3. The respondents/State (appellants in RFAs No. 130, 182 and 239 of 2016), by filing replies, contested the reference petitions, and acquisition of the land(s) was not disputed. The respondents contended that the road was constructed on the demand of the public and oral consent of the land owners was obtained. It is further contended that the owners of the land, including the claimants, consented ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2023 21:06:56 :::CIS 5 for construction of the road without payment of compensation to them. As per the respondents, no trees existed on the .
land(s) and the value of the acquired land was rightly assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector, after considering all the relevant factors.
4. The claimants, by filing rejoinders to the replies filed by the respondents, reiterated their stand, as taken by them in their petitions.
5. to The learned Reference Court on 22.07.2014 framed the following issues for adjudication:
"1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation, as alleged? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for separate compensation in respect of the trees on the acquired land, as alleged? OPP.
3. Relief."
4. The learned Court below after deciding issue No. 1 in favour of the claimants, issue No. 2 against the claimants, partly allowed the petitions holding the claimants entitled for compensation @ Rs. 6,80,000/- (six lacs eighty thousand) per bigha, irrespective of the kind and quality of the acquired land. The Reference Court granted the above ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2023 21:06:56 :::CIS 6 relief with the following statutory benefits and interests:
"1. Interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the market value from the date of .
Notification under Section 4 of the Act till the date of Award under Section 23(1A) of the Act;
2. In addition to the market value, the petitioner is held entitled to get solatium or compulsory acquisition charges at the rate of 30% on such market value as provided under Section 23(2) of the Act;
3. Interest on the enhanced compensation by this Court at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Act upto one year and, thereafter, at the rate of 15% per annum r on the amount of compensation and solatium, till payment is made in the Court; and
4. Interest under Section 34 of the Act from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act."
5. Feeling aggrieved, claimants (appellants in RFAs No. 477, 478 and 480 of 2015, who were petitioners before the learned Reference Court) filed the appeals under Section 54 of the Act for enhancement of compensation, whereas appellants (in RFAs No. 130, 182 and 239 of 2016, who were respondents/State before the learned Reference Court) preferred the appeals under Section 54 of the Act against the impugned award dated 20.07.2015, passed by the learned Reference Court in Reference Cases, with a prayer to quash and set aside the same.
::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2023 21:06:56 :::CIS 76. The learned Additional Advocate General has contended that the learned Reference Court has fallen into .
error by enhancing the market value of the acquired land at the uniform rate of Rs. 6,80,000/- per bigha for all categories of the acquired land. Conversely, it is contended by the learned counsel for the claimants that since the land of the claimants was acquired for the same purpose, as such the learned Reference Court has rightly compensation for the acquired land at the uniform rate, r awarded the regardless of its categorization. He further contended that the learned Reference Court has gravely erred in not allowing the compensation for the uprooted trees, as there were trees standing over the acquired land.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the claimants as well as learned Additional Advocate General and carefully examined the records.
8. Admittedly, the land in question was acquired by the State of Himachal Pradesh for construction of 'Shananghati-Dargi-Macheriyan link road and Bhanjan-Ghati-
Chanawag road', which are rural roads. The total land of the claimants, which was acquired, has already been described ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2023 21:06:56 :::CIS 8 hereinabove. It is not in dispute that the land of the claimants was acquired for the same purpose, that is, for construction .
of 'Chananghati-Dargi-Macheriyan link road and Bhanjan-
Ghati-Chanawag' roads. It is well settled principle of law that if entire land is acquired for the same purpose, then the claimants are entitled for compensation for the acquired land at the uniform rate, regardless of its categorization.
Reference in this regard can be made to General Manager, NHPC & another vs. Rattan Dass & others, 2018 (2) SLC 739, relevant paras whereof, for the sake of ready reference are extracted hereunder:
"8. At the outset, it may be observed that it is settled principle of law that if the entire land is put for a public use and no area is left out for carrying out any developmental activity, then the claimants are entitled for compensation for the entire acquired land, at uniform rates, regardless of its categorization. This aspect of the case has been considered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in RFA No. 282 of 2010 titled Suresh Kumar and others vs. Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC, decided on 22.10.2016 alongwith connected matters, wherein it was observed as under:
"26. It is a settled principle of law that if the entire land is put for a public use and no area is left out for carrying out any developmental activity, then the claimants are entitled for compensation for the entire acquired land, at uniform rates, regardless of its categorization. 27. The apex Court in Haridwar Development Authority vs. Raghubir Singh & others, (2010) 11 SCC 581 has upheld the award of compensation on uniform rates.
28. In Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh and ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2023 21:06:56 :::CIS 9 others 2005(12) SCC 564, while determining the compensation for acquisition of land pertaining to five different villages, the apex Court uniformly awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- per acre, irrespective of the classification and the category of land. 29.
.
Further, in Nelson Fernades vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer 2007(9) SCC 447 while dealing with the case where the land was acquired for laying a Railway line, the Court held that no deduction by way of development charges was permissible as there was no question of any development thereof.
30. Similar view stands taken by this Court in Gulabi and etc. Vs. State of H.P., AIR 1998 HP
9 and later on in H.P. Housing oard vs. Ram Lal & Ors.2003 (3) Shim. L.C. 64, which judgment has attained finality as SLP (Civil) No. 15674-15675 of 2004 titled as Himachal Pradesh Housing Board vs. Ram Lal (D) by LRs & Others, filed by the H.P. Housing r Board came to be dismissed by the Apex Court on 16.8.2004. 31. This judgment was subsequently referred to and relied upon by this Court in Executive Engineer & Anr. Vs Dilla Ram {Latest HLJ 2008 HP 1007} and relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Harinder Pal Singh (supra), wherein the market value of the land under acquisition situated in five different villages was assessed uniformly, irrespective of its nature and quality, also awarded compensation on uniform rates."
9. In the instant case, admittedly, the land of the claimants was acquired for the same purpose, that is for construction of 'Chananghati-Dargi-Macheriyan link road and Bhanjan-Ghati-Chanawag roads, as such the claimants are entitled for compensation for the entire acquired land at the uniform rate, regardless of its categorization, therefore, the learned Reference Court had rightly enhanced the market value of the acquired land at the uniform rate of ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2023 21:06:56 :::CIS 10 Rs.6,80,000/- per bigha for all categories of the acquired land.
.
10. Now, coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the claimants with respect to the fact that the learned Reference Court has not allowed compensation for the trees, which were allegedly standing over the acquired land. To prove the aforesaid facts, the learned counsel for the claimants has relied upon the statements of the claimants, Shri Khem Raj, Shri Munshi Ram and Shri Prem Lal and also the statements of PW-2, Shri Puran Chand and PW-3, Shri Jai Nand. The claimants have deposed that the compensation for the uprooted trees have not been awarded to them. PW-2, Shri Puran Chand, deposed that he had issued the valuation report, Ex.PW-2/A, with respect to the uprooted trees. However, no credence can be attached to his statement, as he himself admitted in his cross-
examination that the list of uprooted trees had been supplied by the claimants to him and he had prepared the report on the asking of the claimants having friendly relations with them. He further admitted in his cross-examination that on the spot he had neither seen any uprooted tree nor he had ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2023 21:06:56 :::CIS 11 verified the factum of the uprooted trees from the Department of HPPWD or from the Revenue Department.
.
Though PW-3, Shri Jai Nand, had deposed that some trees were uprooted from the land of the claimants during the construction work of the road, but he could not state about the number of the trees allegedly uprooted. It was for the claimants to prove that the trees were standing over the acquired land and the same were uprooted at the time of construction of the road. However, no cogent evidence has been led by the claimants with respect to the fact that there were trees standing over the acquired land, which were uprooted. Neither any damage report of the Public Works Department, nor any entry in the measurement book, regarding the uprooted trees, has been placed on record by the claimants. Moreover, no evidence has been led by the claimants with respect to the type and age of the trees, which were allegedly standing over the acquired land. Therefore, in the absence of any cogent and satisfactory evidence on record, it cannot be said that there were trees standing over the acquired land, which were uprooted, as such the learned Reference Court has rightly declined to award the ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2023 21:06:56 :::CIS 12 compensation for the trees, which were allegedly uprooted.
12. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, .
the appeals, being devoid of merits, deserve dismissal and are accordingly dismissed.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of.
r to ( Sushil Kukreja )
Judge
19th May, 2023
(virender)
::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2023 21:06:56 :::CIS