Smt. Kagdu Devi And Others vs Coram
2021 Latest Caselaw 3684 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

.

RFA No. 606 of 2012

Reserved on : 30.7.2021 Decided on: 6.8.2021 ______

Smt. Kagdu Devi and others .....Appellants.

Versus

Collector Land Acquisition HPPWD Mandi, HP and others

Coram:

r to The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.

....Respondents.

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the Appellants: Mr. Balram Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Hemant Vaid, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Vikrant

Chandel and Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Deputy Advocate Generals.

____________________________________________________________ Sureshwar Thakur, Judge

The appellants/land owners (for short "the

petitioners") became aggrieved by a verdict made by the

learned Reference Court, on 20.12.2011, upon, Reference

Petition No. 8 of 2005. Consequently, there-against the

instant appeal becomes reared before this Court.

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

...2

2. Through the impugned award, the learned

.

Reference Court, made, vis-à-vis, the acquired lands the

hereinafter extracted reliefs:-

" In view of the discussion made above, the reference petition is answered accordingly and the

market value of the acquired land has been assessed at Rs.30,820/- per bigha irrespective of the kind and nature of the land at the time of

notification under Section 4 of the Act and the

petitioners are also held entitled to the following relief:-

(a) Solatium @ 30% under Section 23(2) of the Act on the

compensation assessed under Section 23(1) of the Act;

(b) Additional compensation under Section 23 (1-A) of

the Act @ 12% per annum on the market value determined above from the date of publication of

the notification under Sec. 4 of the Act, till date of award of Collector;

(c) Inerest @ 9% per annum on enhanced amount of compensation under Section 23 (1) additional compensation under Section 23 (1-A) and solatium under Section 23 (2) of the Act from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act for the first one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum.

...3

(d) Interest under Section 34 of the Act, if not paid."

.

3. The petitioners' land was acquired for the

construction of Ghaur-Sardhwar road. The Land

Acquisition Collector concerned, had in his award made

on 23.10.2000, assessed the compensatory value of the

acquired land in a sum of Rs.1,51,999/-, and, the value of

house/dhara was assessed in a sum of Rs.7450/-, and, he

thereon had added 30% compulsory acquisition charges,

and, also had added thereon 12% additional

compensation hence commencing from 3.12.1996 to

16.6.2000, besides had added thereon 9%, and, 15%

interest w.e.f 3.12.98 to 31.10.2000.

4. The petitioners became aggrieved by the

aforemade award and preferred Reference Petition No.

8 of 2005 before the learned Reference Court. Upon the

afore Reference Petition, the afore extracted relief was

pronounced. Being aggrieved therefrom, the petitioners

preferred the instant appeal before this Court.

...4

5. The learned Reference Court in determining the

.

market value of the acquired land, had made

dependence upon sale deed(s) respectively borne in Ex.

PB, and, in Ex. RW-2/A. The learned Reference Court,

had concluded that the average price of one Biswa of

land as per sale deed Ex. PB comes to Rs. 2220/-. The

learned Reference Court had also concluded, that the

average price of one biswa of land as per sale deed Ex.

RW-2/A comes to Rs.660/-. However after meteing 10%

increase in the value of the average price of one biswa

of land as comprised in Ex. PB, he determined the market

value thereof in a sum of Rs.2422/-. Consequently, upon

a cumulative consideration of Ex. PB, and, of Ex. RW-2/A,

he concluded that the market value of the acquired

lands comes to Rs. 30,820/- per bigha.

6. The aforemade determination by the

learned Reference Court, is a just fair and reasonable

determination, vis-à-vis the amount of compensation

payable to the petitioners vis-à-vis the acquired land(s).

...5

Therefore it does not merit any interference by this Court.

.

Further more, the addition(s) thereon of the statutory

levies are also just and tenable and do not warrant any

interference from this Court.

7. Be that as it may, though PW-4, Tilak Raj, an

official of HPPWD, upon, his stepping into the witness box,

had in his examination-in-chief, made a testification that

in the apposite measurement book, a reflection is cast

that 290 trees of various species, and, aged between 1-2

months, rather existed on the acquired land. Despite the

afore testification of PW-4 existing on the records of

learned Reference Court, the latter proceeded to only

on the ground, that the Land Acquisition Collector, has

not made any determination qua therewith, hence

concluded that no compensation is determinable to the

land owners, vis-à-vis, the afore number of trees, aged

between 1-2 months, and, as existed on the acquired

land. The afore reason in declining compensation to the

petitioners vis-à-vis trees of various species existing on the

...6

acquired land, cannot be countenanced as thereupon

.

the meritworthy testification of PW-4 would become

untenably discarded. However, since the contemplated

formula vis-a-vis the assessment of compensation qua

therewith is not available before this Court, and, would

rather be made available, only upon the expert

concerned hence testifying before the learned

Reference Court. Thereupon in so far as the afore

declining of compensation to the petitioners is

concerned, this Court proceeds to set aside the afore

portion of the award and also proceeds to remand the lis

with a direction to the learned Reference Court, to, after

receiving evidence of the expert concerned, as,

appertaining to the formula for reckoning compensation

for the trees occurring on the acquired land, determine

just and fair compensation qua therewith. The afore

exercise be completed positively within two months

hereafter.

...7

8. Lastly the learned counsel for the petitioners has

.

contended with much vigor before this Court that

declining of compensation by the learned Reference

Court vis-à-vis the earnings reared from the water mill, as,

existed on the acquired land, is, impermissible. The afore

declining by the learned Reference Court however, is

merit-worthy as PW-4 has un-erodingly voiced, that in the

apposite land records, the water mill/gharat is depicted

to be in an unworkable condition, hence, defacilitating

the petitioners to rear any income therefrom.

9. In view of the above, determination of

compensation by the learned Reference Court vis-à-vis

the acquired land of the petitioners is not interfered with.

However, the findings recorded by the learned

Reference Court in so far they relate to declining of

compensation vis-à-vis trees occurring on the acquired

land and as disclosed by PW-4, does warrant

interference, and, accordingly is quashed and set aside.

The matter is remanded to the learned Reference Court,

...8

to after receiving evidence of the expert concerned

.

appertaining to the formula for reckoning compensation

for the trees occurring on the acquired land hence to

determine just and fair compensation qua therewith. The

afore exercise be completed positively within two

months hereafter.

All pending applications stand disposed of.

    6th August, 2021                     (Sureshwar Thakur),
    (priti)                                   Judge.