Himachal Pradesh High Court
Land Acquisition vs Land on 7 September, 2021
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
ON THE 7th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.417 OF 2010
Between:
1. LAND ACQUISITION
COLLECTOR, (SOUTH
ZONE) WINTER FIELD,
SHIMLA-3 CAMP AT
SOLAN (HP).
2.
STATE OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH THROUGH
DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
SOLAN, (HP).
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
IPH DIVISION, SOLAN,
(HP).
....APPELLANTS.
(BY MR. ADARSH SHARMA,
MR. SUMESH RAJ AND
MR. SANJEEV SOOD, ADDITIONAL
ADVOCATE GENERALS)
AND
1. SH. SANTOKH SINGH,
2. SH. SANT RAM,
3. SH. HARI DASS (NOW
DECEASED) THROUGH
HIS LRS:
3(a) SH. ANANT RAM, S/O
LATE SH. HARI DASS,
3(b) SMT. SHYAMA WIDOW
OF SH. HARI DASS,
3(c) SMT. DROPTI
(MOTHER) OF LATE
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:02:09 :::CIS
2
SH. HARI DASS,
4. SH. BHAGAT RAM
(NOW
DECEASED)
THROUGH HIS LRS:
.
4(a) SH. PAWAN KUMAR,
S/O SH. BHAGAT RAM;
4(b) SH. PANKAJ KUMAR,
S/O LATE SH. BHAGAT
RAM;
4(c) KUMARI SAPNA, D/O
LATE SH. BHAGAT
RAM;
4(d) SMT. SHEELA DEVI,
WIDOW OF SH.
BHAGAT RAM;
4(e) SMT. DROPTI
(MOTHER) OF LATE
SH. BHAGAT RAM;
5.
SH. ROOP RAm;
6. SMT. NARAINI, WIDOW
OF SH. BISH RAM;
7. MS. SUNITA, D/O SH.
BISH RAM;
8. MS. MANJU, D/O SH.
BISH RAM;
9. MS. REENA, D/O SH.
BISH RAM;
10. SMT. DROPTI
(MOTHER) OF SH.
BISH RAM;
(ALL RESIDENTS OF
VILLAGE DADHOG,
P.O. SOLAN BREWERY,
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
SOLAN, HP.
....RESPONDENTS.
(BY MR. RUPINDER SINGH, ADVOCATE)
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the
following:
1
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:02:09 :::CIS
3
JUDGMENT
CMP(M) Nos. 1842 & 1843 of 2019
.
By way of these applications, filed under 22, Rule 4 read
with Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as Section 5 of
the Limitation Act, a prayer has been made to bring on record legal
representatives of deceased respondent No.3, who is stated to have
died during the pendency of the appeal on 25.06.2018 and for
setting aside abatement and condonation of delay in filing the
application. r
It is pertinent to mention that when the case was listed
in the Court on 23.07.2018, in view of the fact that despite
reasonable opportunities having been granted to the State, steps
were not taken to bring on record legal representatives of deceased
respondent No.3, the appeal was ordered to have been abated qua
the said respondent.
Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the
reason as to why appropriate application could not be filed to bring
on record legal representatives of deceased respondent No.3 within
the statutory period or within some reasonable time thereafter was
that despite best endeavour made by the State-authorities, it took
time to obtain necessary record with regard to the legal
representatives of the deceased and it is for this reason that
appropriate application could not be filed earlier. He submits that it
will be in the interest of justice in case the order, vide which the
appeal was ordered to have been abated qua respondent No.3, is
recalled and the present applications are allowed, so that legal
representatives of deceased respondent No.3 can be brought on
.
record and the matter can be heard on merit.
Learned counsel for the proposed legal representatives
submits that by efflux of time and by virtue of the order which stood
passed by the Court on 23.07.2018, valuable rights have now
accrued upon the legal representatives of the deceased and same
steps were
taken by
cannot be taken away simply on the whims of the State, because
when despite reasonable opportunities having been granted, no
the State to bring on record legal
representatives of deceased respondent No.3, the Court rightly
passed the order, vide which the appeal qua the deceased
respondent was ordered to have been abated.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
gone through the averments made in these applications, this Court
is of the view that it will be in the interest of justice in case these
applications are allowed, as prayed for, as the Court is convinced
that the reasons, as to why the applications could not be filed by the
State to bring on record legal representatives of deceased respondent
No.3, are bonafide.
A perusal of the averments made in para-3 of the
application, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, further
substantiate the fact that though due diligence was exercised by the
applicants, yet appropriate applications could not be filed within
limitation.
In this view of the matter, these applications are
.
allowed, as prayed for. Order dated 20.08.2018, vide which the
appeal was ordered to have been abated qua deceased respondent
No.3, is recalled. Proposed legal representatives of deceased
respondent No.3 are ordered to be impleaded as respondents No.3
(a) to 3 (c). Abatement is ordered to be set aside and delay in filing
the application is condoned. The applications stands disposed of.
RFA No.417 of 2010
Notice to the newly added respondents. Mr. Rupinder
Singh, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the newly added
respondents. Heard.
By way of this appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 the State has challenged the award passed by
the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Solan in Petition No.
10-S/04 of 2003, titled Sh. Santokh Singh & Ors., vs. Land
Acquisition Collector & Ors., dated 3.12.2009, in terms whereof, the
respondents herein were held entitled for enhanced compensation @
Rs. 5657.93/- per square meter of the land under reference. They
were also held entitled to all statutory benefits, as provided under
Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal
are that a Land Reference Petition was filed by the respondents
herein for increasing the compensation amount as was granted qua
their land acquired by the Government for the construction of a
Pump House Shalkana Drinking Water Scheme at village Parag
Shalakana, Tehsil & District Solan, HP. Notification under Section 4
.
of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of the land in issue was
issued on 23rd December, 1997. After completion of the process of
acquisition, as is required under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter to be referred as the Act), the Land Acquisition Collector
assessed the market value of the land quality i.e. Araji Kuhal Deom
at Rs. 3,37,952.33/- and Araji Banjar Kadeem at Rs. 32,337.14/-.
Compulsory acquisition charges @ 30% and interest @ 9% w.e.f.
23.12.1997 to 21.12.1998 and @ 15% w.e.f. 23.12.1998 to
31.7.2002 were also awarded.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the land owners preferred the
Reference Petition.
4. While arguing at the assessed amount for the grant of
compensation, learned Reference Court relied upon the prices of the
highest quality of the land in Village Ber Khas.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, Learned
Reference Court framed the following issues:-
"1. Whether the LAC Solan did not assess the market value
of the acquired land adequately, as alleged? OPP.
2. If issue No.1 is proved what was the market value of the
acquired land at the time of issuance of notification
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, as alleged?
OPP.
3. Relief."
6. On the basis of evidence led by the parties in support
of their respective contentions, the issues were decided as under:-
.
"Issue No.1 : Yes.
Issue No.2 : Yes.
Relief : Petition allowed as per the operative
part of the award."
7.
Learned Reference Court awarded Rs. 5657.93/- per
square meters as rate of compensation for the acquired land
alongwith other statutory benefits, inter-alia, on the ground that,
if the land was indeed acquired for one and the same purpose,
then the classification of the land looses its significance and equal
value has to be given all types of land.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also
gone through the award under challenge as well as the record of
the case.
9. To prove the value of the acquired land, petitioner
Santokh Singh entered the witness box as PW-1 and he filed his
affidavit Ex.PW-1/A, in which it was mentioned that the place where
the acquired land was situated at a distance of one and a half
kilometers from Solan City on foot and through the National
Highway the distance was 4 kilometers. The land was 300 yards
from the Solan Brewery and all essential facilities like School, Post
Office, Hospital etc., were available in the village. There were number
of factories at Chambaghat, which were just at a distance of about
one and a half kilometers away from the village where the acquired
land was situated and the distance of National Highway from the
.
acquired land was about 300 yards.
10. Petitioner also examined PW-2 Sh. Dhani Singh, who
was working as a Patwari at Slogra, District Solan, who deposed
that as per record the acquired land was at distance of 300 yards
from the boundaries of Dabog, Ber-Khas and Shlakhna. This witness
also deposed that in village Ber Khas, the average price of Kuhal
abal from 1st January, 1997 to 31st December, 1997 was Rs.
5657.93/- per square meter and for Banjar Abal was Rs. 3684.04/-
per square meter. As per him, the average price of Banjar Kdim was
Rs. 510.49/- square meter and Ghasni was Rs. 336.07/- per square
meters. PW-2 also stated in the Court that the acquired land was
300 to 400 meters away from Ber Khas. Record further
demonstrates that on behalf of the State, Assistant Engineer of IPH,
Sub Division No.3, Solan appeared as RW-1 and he stated that the
value of the property acquired by the Government stood assessed
and amount of the same stood awarded. This witness also deposed
that the acquired land was about 8 kilometers from Solan by road
but he did not deny that by foot, it was just two kilometers away
from Solan city. A perusal of the cross-examination of this witness
further demonstrates states that he had not personally visited the
site.
11. The average value of Mauza Ber Khas is on record as
Ext. PW2/A, in terms whereof average value of the land in the said
Mauza was Rs.56.57.93/- per square meter for the best quality of
.
land therein i.e. Kuhal abal. The process of acquisition deprived the
land owners of their land. Being compulsory acquisition, the land
owners had no say in the process of acquisition of land except to
make an endeavour to get the best compensation price in lieu
thereof.
12. A perusal
of the cross-examination
demonstrates that the State was not able to elucidate from these
witnesses that the land acquired was not in close vicinity to Mauza
of PW-2
Ber Khas. That being the case, this Court is of the considered view
that the learned Reference Court has rightly assessed the value of
the acquired land by giving the price of the highest quality of land in
village Ber Khas in favour of the land owners.
13. The contentions of the appellants that there were no
facilities available at the site of the acquired land could not be
proved on record before the Learned Reference Court by the
appellants. The sole witness who deposed on behalf of the appellant
before the learned Reference Court stated in his cross-examination
that he had not seen the site which was acquired for sewerage plant.
14. In addition, this Court concurs with the findings
returned by the learned Reference Court that when the land was
acquired for a particular purpose, then the compensation was to be
awarded by taking the land as a single unit and it could not be
classified on the basis of its type mentioned in the revenue record. In
such like situation, classification of land looses its significance. The
parties indeed are entitled for enhanced compensation irrespective of
.
nature of the land.
15. Therefore, as this Court is of the considered view that
the enhanced compensation as has been awarded by the learned
Reference Court is just and fair and the findings arrived in this
regard are clearly borne out from the record of the case, this appeal
sans merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to
costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Interim
order, if any, stands vacated.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
September 7, 2021
(vinod)
