Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ntpc Limited vs Shri Krishan Chand Sharma & Others on 26 December, 2016
Author: Sanjay Karol
Bench: Sanjay Karol
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RFA No. 481 of 2012 along with RFA Nos.482/2012, 586/2011, 561/2011, .
585/2011, 60/2010, 618/2011, 619/2011, 620/2011, 621/2011, 210/2013, 211/2013 & 212/2013 Date of Decision: December 26, 2016.
1. RFA No. 481 of 2012 NTPC Limited, Kol Dam. ...Appellant.
of Versus Shri Krishan Chand Sharma & others. ...Respondents.
2. rt RFA No. 482 of 2012 NTPC Limited, Kol Dam. ...Appellant.
Versus Hari Ram & others. ...Respondents.
3. RFA No. 586 of 2011 NTPC Limited, Kol Dam. ...Appellant.
Versus Jai Chand Sagar & another. ...Respondents.
4. RFA No. 561 of 2011NTPC Limited, Kol Dam. ...Appellant.
Versus Gulab Devi & others. ...Respondents.
5. RFA No. 585 of 2011NTPC Limited, Kol Dam. ...Appellant.
Versus ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:07 :::HCHP 2 Duli Chand & others. ...Respondents.
6. RFA No. 60 of 2010 Krishan Chand ...Appellant.
Versus
.
NTPC Limited & another ...Respondents.
7. RFA No. 618 of 2011
Gulab Devi & another ...Appellant.
Versus
NTPC Limited & another ...Respondents.
of
8. RFA No. 619 of 2011
Duli Chand & others ...Appellant.
Versus
9.
rt
NTPC Limited & another
RFA No. 620 of 2011
...Respondents.
Jai Chand ...Appellant.
Versus
NTPC Limited & another ...Respondents.
10. RFA No. 621 of 2011
Kishori Lal ...Appellant.
Versus
NTPC Limited & another ...Respondents.
11. RFA No. 210 of 2013
Prabhawati ...Appellant.
Versus
NTPC Limited & another ...Respondents.
12. RFA No. 211 of 2013
Smt. Gandhrubu & others ...Appellant.
Versus
NTPC Limited & another ...Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:07 :::HCHP
3
13. RFA No. 212 of 2013
Pyare Lal & another ...Appellant.
Versus
NTPC Limited & another ...Respondents.
.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes For the Appellant: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant-NTPC, in RFA Nos.
481/2012 & 482/2012.
of Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for appellant-NTPC in RFA No.586/2011, 561/2011, 585/2011.
rt Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate, for the appellants, in RFA No. 60 of 2010, 618/2011, 619/2011, 620/2011, 621/2011, 210 to 212/2013.
For the Respondents: Mr. G.C. Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Ms.Meera Devi, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 6 in RFA No. 482/2012.
Mr.Dinesh Kumar, Advocate, for private respondents, in RFA Nos. 481/2012, 586/2011,561/2011 & 585/2011.
Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, for respondent-NTPC in RFA Nos.60/2010 & 620/2011.
Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate, for respondent-NTPC in RFA No.621/2011 Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent-NTPC in RFA No.618/2011 & 619/2011.
1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:07 :::HCHP 4 Mr. Shrawan Dogra, AG with
Mr.Puneet Rajta, Dy. AG., for
respondent-State, in all the appeals.
Sanjay Karol, J (oral).
.
In all these appeals, both the claimants as also the beneficiary are aggrieved of the various awards passed by the Reference Courts. It is not in dispute that reference petitions arise out of the very same award i.e. of Award No.36 of 2005, dated 23.09.2005, passed by the Collector Land Acquisition. In these appeals, following awards passed by the Reference Court and which are rt subject matter of the present appeals are as follows:-
RFA No. Land Reference Award Title Date of award of No. the Reference Court 481/2012 15-S/4 of 2008/06, Krishan Chand v. NTPC 30.10.2009 passed by District Judge (F), Shimla, H.P. 482/2012 26-S/4 of 2008/06, Hari Ram v. NTPC 05.06.2010 passed by District Judge (F), Shimla, H.P. 586/2011 2-S/4 of 2007, passed Jai Chand Sagar v. NTPC 14.07.2011 by Additional District Judge, FTC, Shimla, H.P. 561/2011 4-S/4 of 2007, passed Gulab Devi v. NTPC 12.07.2011 by Additional District Judge, FTC, Shimla, H.P. 585/2011 5-S/4 of 2007, passed Duli Chand v. NTPC 13.07.2011 by Additional District Judge, FTC, Shimla, H.P. 60/2010 15-S/4 of 2008/06, Krishan Chand v. NTPC 30.10.2009 passed by District Judge (F), Shimla, H.P. 618/2011 4-S/4 of 2007, passed Gulab Devi v. NTPC 12.07.2011 by Additional District Judge, FTC, Shimla, H.P. 619/2011 5-S/4 of 2007, passed Duli Chand v. NTPC 13.07.2011 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:07 :::HCHP 5 by Additional District Judge, FTC, Shimla, H.P. 620/2011 2-S/4 of 2007, passed Jai Chand Sagar v. NTPC 14.07.2011 by Additional District Judge, FTC, Shimla, H.P. .
621/2011 18-S/4 of 2006, passed Kishori Lal v. NTPC 14.07.2011 by Additional District Judge, FTC, Shimla, H.P. 210/2013 47-S/4 of 2012/07, Prabhawati v. NTPC 02.11.2012 passed by District Judge (F), Shimla, H.P. 211/2013 52-S/4 of 2012/06, Gandhbru v. NTPC 02.11.2012 passed by District Judge (F), Shimla, H.P. 212/2013 48-S/4 of 2012/07, Pyare Lal v. NTPC 02.11.2012 of passed by District Judge (F), Shimla, H.P.
2. The Collector had determined the market rt value of the acquired land, classification wise, ranging from `87,376/- to `3,93,170/-. In terms of the impugned awards, in the cases of Krishan Chand Sharma and Hari Ram, market value stands re-determined, regardless of classification @ `4.5 lacs per bigha, whereas, in the cases of Gulab Devi, Jai Chand and Duli Chand, the same stands re-determined @ `3,93,170/- per bigha. With respect to Prabhawati, Gandhrbu and Pyare Lal, the reference petitions came to be dismissed.
3. The acquisition proceedings pertain to the Collector's award No.36 of 2005 dated 23.09.2005, pertaining to village Palyad Dom, Tehsil Sunni, District Shimla, H.P. In terms of the said award, the market value ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:07 :::HCHP 6 of the acquired land stands determined, classification wise from `87,376/- to `3,93,170/-. In the impugned land reference petition, the same stands re-determined by the .
Reference Court @ `4.5 lacs per bigha, on uniform basis, for the reason that: (a) The observations made by the Collector in its award itself justified such enhancement;
and (b) Award (Ex.PA) passed by the Reference Court in of reference petition No.22-S/4 of 2007/06, titled as Brij Lal Versus The Land Acquisition Collector, NTPC (Kol Dam), Bilaspur and others, decided on 31.03.2009.
rt
4. If the claimant(s) are held legally entitled for rates, on uniform basis, irrespective of classification and category, then the increase in the amount of re-
determination of the market value of the acquired land is only marginal. The rates stand increased from `3,93,170/- to `4.5 lacs per bigha.
5. It is a matter of record that several claimants filed several land reference petitions, some of which could not be clubbed and as such were disposed of by different Courts on different dates. Noticeably, some of the Courts have dismissed the petitions by relying upon the Collector's award and some of the petitions stand ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:07 :::HCHP 7 allowed by enhancing the amount up to `4.5 lacs per bigha. For determination of all these appeals, facts of land reference petition No. 15-S/4 of 2008/06, titled as .
Krishan Chand Sharma and others Versus NTPC and another, subject matter in RFA No. 581 of 2012, are being referred to.
6. In terms of award No.36 of 2005, dated of 23.09.2005, Collector Land Acquisition, determined the market value of the acquired land awarding different rates, classification/category rt wise, ranging from `87,376/- to `3,93,170/- per bigha.
7. In terms of the impugned award dated 30.10.2009, passed by District Judge (F), Shimla, H.P., in Reference Petition No.15-S/4 of 2008/06, titled as Krishan Chand Sharma and others Versus NTPC and another, the Reference Court re-determined the market value of the entire acquired land, irrespective of its category/classification, by uniformly awarding a sum of `4.5 lacs per bigha.
8. Certain facts are not in dispute: (i) 11.18.57 hectares (reduced from original area 12.21.82 hectares) of land came to be acquired in village Palyad Dom (1st ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:07 :::HCHP 8 File), Tehsil Sunni, District Shimla, H.P., with the publication of notification in the official gazette on 23.12.2000, so issued under Section 4 of the Land .
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act);
(ii) The acquisition proceedings concluded with the passing of Collector's award No.36 of 2005, dated 23.09.2005, under Section 11 of the Act and the State of taking over possession of the land; (iii) The purpose of acquisition being construction of Dam, commonly known as Kol Dam; (iv) Dissatisfied with the offer made by the rt Collector, claimants filed petitions under Section 18 of the Act, which came to be clubbed and on the basis of common evidence led by the parties, disposed of in terms of impugned award; (v) It is the common case of parties that the entire acquired land came to be submerged with the construction of Dam by the beneficiary. Also there is no evidence on record of either any requirement or any developmental activity carried out on the spot.
9. With these admitted/undisputed facts, material placed on record by the parties is being appreciated for just decision of the case.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:07 :::HCHP 910. It is a settled principle of law that onus of establishing true market value of the acquired land, higher than the one which stands determined by the .
Collector, is always upon the claimants.
11. Perusal of the Collector's award reveals that claimants themselves claimed compensation @ `30,00,000/- per bigha. But then it was of category/classification wise.
12. It is a settled principle of law that Collector's award is a mere offer and in the proceedings under rt Section 18 of the Act, Court is duty bound to determine the market value, which is just, fair and reasonable, on the basis of material placed on record by the parties.
The conclusion with respect to re-determination of the market value, in the instant case, is clearly based on the evidence led by the claimants, which cannot be said to have been appreciated erroneously. Material, in its entirety, stands considered by the Court below.
13. With vehemence, Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned counsel, contends that Reference Court erred in considering the fact that before the Collector, claimants had themselves elected for award of compensation on ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:07 :::HCHP 10 the basis of classification/category, hence they were precluded from seeking re-determination of the market value of the acquired land on uniform basis.
.
14. To rebut the same, Mr. Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel, seeks reliance on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Chimanlal Hargonvinddas Versus Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another, AIR 1988 SC of 1652; (1988) 3 SCC 751, wherein the Court made the following observations:-
"4 The following factors must be etched on the rt mental screen :
(1) A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his Award unless the same material is produced and proved before the Court.
(2) So also the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial Court open or exposed to challenge before the court hearing the Reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the material utilised by him for making his valuation cannot be utilised by the Court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the court to sit in appeal against the Award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:07 :::HCHP 11 by the Land Acquisition Officer, as if it were an appellate Court.
(3) The Court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the .
market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it.
(4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the Court. Of course the of materials placed and proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose. (5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date of rt publication of the notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of Notifications under Ss. 6 and 9 are irrelevant).
(6) The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification under S. 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price.
(7) In doing so by the instances method, the Court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value.
(8) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation of Acquisition of land.) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:07 :::HCHP 12 (9) Even post-notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate, (2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on .
account of the resultant improvement in development prospects.
(10) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations :
(i) proximity from time angle of
(ii) proximity from situation angle. (11) Having identified the instances which provide the index of market value the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market rt value of the land under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-a-vis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. (12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may beevaluated interms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do. (13) The market value of the land under acquisition has thereafter to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors.
(14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has to be undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudent man of the world of business would do. We may illustrate some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors :-::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:07 :::HCHP 13
(For table see below) Plus factors Minus factors
1. Smallness of size. 1. largeness of area.
2. Proximity to a road. 2. situation in the interior .
at a distance from the road.
3. frontage on a road. 3. narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth.
4. nearness to developed 4. lower level requiring the area. depressed portion to be filled up.
5. regular shape. 5. remoteness from of developed locality.
6. level vis-a-vis land 6. some special under acquisition. disadvantageous factor rt which would deter a purchaser.
7. special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage.
(15) The evaluation of these factors of course depends on the facts of each case. There cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule. Common sense is the best and most reliable guide. For instance, take the factor regarding the size. A building plot of land say 500 to 1000 sq. yds cannot be compared with a large tract or block of land of say 10000 eq. yds. or more. Firstly while a smaller plot is within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a lay out, carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up) and the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:07 :::HCHP 14 hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction byway of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approx. between 20% to 50% to account for land required .
to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting will to some extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or urban area, whether building activity is picking up, and whether waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur would be locked up, of will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards.
(16) Every case must be dealt with on its own fact pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a rt prudent purchaser of land in which position the Judge must place himself.
(17) These are general guidelines to be applied with understanding informed with common sense."
(Emphasis supplied) Reliance is also sought on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer Versus Karigowda and others, (2010) 5 SCC 708.
15. Significantly while responding to the reference petition or at the time of recording evidence, such objection never came to be taken by the beneficiary.
Even before this Court, it is not a pleaded ground in the memo of appeal. In fact, as is evident from the reference ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:07 :::HCHP 15 petition, claimants had claimed rates @ `30,00,000/- per bigha, on uniform basis.
16. In any event, Reference Court is duty bound to .
determine such market value, which is just, fair and reasonable.
17. The law for award of compensation at uniform rates, when the purpose of acquisition is common and no of developmental activity is required to be carried out is no longer res integra and stands settled by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by rt LRs Versus State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789 (paras 22 and 23); Himmat Singh and others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another, (2013) 16 SCC 392 (para
34); Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Dead ) By Legal Representatives and others Versus State of Karnataka and another, (2015) 10 SCC 469 (paras 80 and 81); as also this Court in RFA No. 953 of 2012, titled as Land Acquisition Collector & another Versus Jatinder Singh, decided on 01.06.2016 and other connected matters. As such, at this point in time, in view of admitted/undisputed factual matrix, as noticed earlier, it would not be permissible for the beneficiary to raise such objections.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:07 :::HCHP 1618. Now 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.
19. The apex Court in Haridwar Development of Authority vs. Raghubir Singh & others, (2010) 11 SCC 581 has upheld the award of compensation on uniform rates.
Also it has acknowledged the principle of providing rt increase in the market value up to 10% to 12% per year for the land situated near urban areas having potential for non-agricultural development.
20. In Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh and 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 `40,000/- per acre, irrespective of the classification and the category of land.
21. 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 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:07 :::HCHP 17 Railway line, the Court held that no deduction by way of development charges was permissible as there was no question of any development thereof.
.
22. 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 of (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 Board came to be dismissed by rt the Apex Court on 16.8.2004.
23. 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.
24. It is a matter of fact that the entire land was put to public purpose. Dam stood constructed thereupon.
It was used for only one purpose and as such there ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:07 :::HCHP 18 cannot be any error in uniform determination of the market value of the acquired land.
25. From the Award (Ex.PA), it is evident that land .
situate in village Padyar Dom, Pargana Mangal, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P., came to be acquired for the very same public purpose and the claimants were awarded market value @ `5,00,000/- per bigha.
of Accepting the said award to be the basis for the re-
determination of the market value, the Reference court, by taking into consideration the evidence led by the rt claimants and by examining witnesses, namely, Brij Mohan (PW.1), Bhom Prakash (PW.2) and Jial Lal (PW.3), found the true market value of the acquired land to be `4.5 lacs and not `5 lacs per bigha.
26. It be also observed that the no exemplar sale deeds were placed on record by the claimants. However, from the ocular evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, it is quite evident that the acquired land is just at a distance of 2 kms from Tatapani, a famous tourist spot. Also close by there is township by the name of Sunni, having all modern facilities and convenience and more particularly that of Government Hospital, Government College and ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:07 :::HCHP 19 several other Government and Semi-Government establishments. The similarity of the acquired land with that of the exemplar award, with regard to its user and .
potentiality also stands established on record. However, only distinction being the Tehsil in which the lands are situate. Exemplar land is situate in Tehsil Arki, having better and greater potential of development and being of put to industrial use, in view of the establishment of a Cement Factory, in close vicinity. But then, the land situate in Tehsil Sunni, also has potential of being put to rt some commercial use. Hence it is for this reason that the Reference Court scaled down the market value, in comparison to that of the exemplar award, from `5 lacs to `4.5 lacs. The reasoning adopted by the Reference Court cannot be said to be illogical, unreasonable or illegal, for after all judicial notice can be taken of the fact that Tatapani is a famous tourist spot having historical value and significance and is just at a distance of 35 kms from Shimla. In any event, land of the petitioners was being used for agricultural purposes.
27. It is a matter of record that beneficiary placed on record sale deeds (Ex.RW.1/A to Ex.RW.1/M, excluding ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:07 :::HCHP 20 Ex.RW.1/I and Ex.RW.1/N), but then none of the three witnesses was examined by them have established the similarity of the acquired land with that of these .
exemplar sale deeds.
28. Quite evidently, claimants did not make any claim with respect to the superstructures or trees existing on the acquired land. As such, no enhancement of was made with regard to the same. It is a matter of record that exemplar Award (Ex.PA), stands affirmed by this Court in RFA No.267/2011, titled as NTPC Limited vs. rt Briju alias Brij Lal and others, on 19.12.2016.
29. If one were to peruse the evidence led by the claimants in RFA No. 482 of 2012, one finds similar evidence with regard to the potential to which the land could be put to. Lal Chand in his unrebutted testimony clarified that the land is between Sunni and Tatapani, a fast developing area. Thus the land having great potential of being put to commercial use sands established.
30. Even in this case, beneficiary did place on record sale deeds which for the very same reason as ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:07 :::HCHP 21 mentioned supra, cannot be looked into for determination of the market value of the acquired land.
31. On the other hand, in the said reference .
petition, claimants have produced on record Collector's Award No. 79 of 2008, dated 8.3.2008 (Ext. PX) with respect to village Tatapani, as also award dated 30.10.2009(Ext. A-1), so passed by the reference Court in of Ref. Petition No. 15-S/4 of 2008/06, titled as Krishan Chand Sharma vs. NTPC & another, and Award dated 30.10.2009 (Ext. A-2), passed by the Reference Court in rt Ref. Petition No. 45-S/4 of 2008/06, titled as Jagdish Chand vs. LAC (NTPC) & others. These awards stand proved on record and similarity with that of the acquired land established through witnesses Lal Chand (PW-1) and Ramesh Kumar (PW-2).
32. Noticeably, award (Ext. PX) pertains to village Tatapani and the award passed in the Reference Petition arising out of this award, stands affirmed by this Court in RFA No. 425 of 2012, decided on 15.12.2016. Noticeably, in terms of Awards (Ext. A-1 and Ext. A-2), market value stands re-determined @ 4.5 lacs. This Court in RFA No. 425 of 2012 has affirmed the re-determination of the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:07 :::HCHP 22 market value on similar base. The entire land covered by Collector's Award No. 79 of 2008 and Award No. 36 of 2005 is situate in village Palyad Dom, Teshil Sunni, Distt.
.
Shimla, H.P. As noticed above, land situate in Tehsil Arki was also acquired for the very same public purpose for which amount higher than the one awarded by the Reference Court, subject matter of the present appeals, of stand awarded to various claimants.
33. It be only observed that while outrightly dismissing the Reference Petitions, Reference Court rt refereed to and relied upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Subh Ram & others, vs. State of Haryana & another, (2010) 1 SCC 444. Noticeably the Reference Court lost sight of the fact that not only the decision was rendered in the given facts and circumstances but also similarly situated claimants already stood awarded amount @ `4.5 lacs per bigha. Before the Reference Court, claimants were claiming market value of the acquired land @30,00,000/- per bigha. In awarding rates @ `4.5 lacs, beneficiary had no objection, as is evident from the pleadings and the evidence led on record. As such, Reference Court seriously erred in completely ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:07 :::HCHP 23 ignoring the material so placed by the parties on record, as also not considering the fact that land reference petitions pertaining to the claimants, with respect to the .
very same acquisition proceedings - covered by the Collector's Award, came to be decided previously by the very same Court, enhancing the market value from `3,93,170/- to 4.5 lacs per bigha on uniform basis.
of
34. Considering the material so placed on record by the parties and the submissions made, this Court is of the view that re-determination of the market value of the rt enquire acquired land, covered by the very same Collector's Award cannot be said to be on the higher side and as such, all the claimants are entitled to award of similar compensation.
35. Learned counsel for the claimants contend that they shall be content if they are uniformly awarded rates at `4.5 lacs per bigha.
36. As such, appeals filed by the beneficiary are dismissed and that of the claimants, insofar as their claim, restricted to `4.5 lacs is concerned, are allowed. It stands clarified that the market value of the acquired land stands re-determined at `4.5 lacs per bigha ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:07 :::HCHP 24 regardless of its classification and category. This is with respect to all the claimants before this Court.
37. No other point urged or proved.
.
38. Cross-objection, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
39. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that decision rendered in the present appeals would have of an automatic bearing on the other connected appeals/cross-objections, arising out of Collector's award No.36 of 2005, which are pending before this Court.
rt Registrar (Judicial) to take appropriate instructions from Hon'ble the Chief Justice for listing of such connected appeals, before the appropriate Court, particulars whereof shall also be supplied by learned counsel for the parties.
In view of the aforesaid, all the appeals stand disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.
(Sanjay Karol), Judge.
December 26, 2016 (Purohit/PK) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:07 :::HCHP