Himachal Pradesh High Court
The State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Unknown on 2 May, 2022
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 2ND DAY OF MAY, 2022
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
.
REGULAR FIRST APPEALS NO.357,353,354,355 & 356 OF 2011
1. RFA NO.357 of 2011
Between
1. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
(TOURISM & CIVIL AVIATION),
SHIMLA-171002
2. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (CIVIL)-CUM-
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR,
KANGRA.
...APPELLANTS
(SHRI RAJU RAM RAHI, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
AND
SHAKUNTLA DEVI
WD/O GIAN SINGH,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RACHHIALU, P.O. BANDI,
TEHSIL & DISTRICT KANGRA,
HIMACHAL PRADESH.
(Ref. Petition No.50-K/05/2003)
...RESPONDENTS
2. RFA NO.353 of 2011
Between
1. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
(TOURISM & CIVIL AVIATION),
SHIMLA-171002
2. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (CIVIL)-CUM-
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR,
KANGRA.
...APPELLANTS
(SHRI RAJU RAM RAHI, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
AND
1. ROSHAN LAL
2. PURSHOTAM CHAND
::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2022 20:04:48 :::CIS
RFA Nos. 357, 353, 354, 355 & 356 OF 2011
...2...
SONS OF SWARU RAM,
RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE RACHHIALU, P.O. BANDI,
TEHSIL & DISTRICT KANGRA,
HIMACHAL PRADESH.
(Ref. Petition No.52-K/05/2003)
.
...RESPONDENTS
3. RFA NO.354 of 2011
Between
1. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
(TOURISM & CIVIL AVIATION),
SHIMLA-171002
2. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (CIVIL)-CUM-
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR,
KANGRA.
r ...APPELLANTS
(SHRI RAJU RAM RAHI, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
AND
BALBIR SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS:
1. KAMLESH KUMARI WIDOW OF
2. SANJAY KUMAR SON OF
BALBIR SINGH, RESIDENTS VILLAGE BANDI
(NANGANPATT), TEHSIL DHARAMSHALA,
DISTRICT KANGRA,
HIMACHAL PRADESH.
(Ref. Petition No.51-K/05/2003)
...RESPONDENTS
4. RFA NO.355 of 2011
Between
1. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
(TOURISM & CIVIL AVIATION),
SHIMLA-171002
::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2022 20:04:48 :::CIS
RFA Nos. 357, 353, 354, 355 & 356 OF 2011
...3...
2. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (CIVIL)-CUM-
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR,
KANGRA.
...APPELLANTS
.
(SHRI RAJU RAM RAHI, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
AND
1. TARA DEVI W/O RAJMAL
2. SAVITRI DEVI W/O RAHNAK
RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE RACHHIALU, P.O. BANDI,
TEHSIL & DISTRICT KANGRA,
HIMACHAL PRADESH.
(Ref. Petition No.14-K/05/2003)
...RESPONDENTS
5. RFA NO.356 of 2011
Between
1. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
(TOURISM & CIVIL AVIATION),
SHIMLA-171002
2. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (CIVIL)-CUM-
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR,
KANGRA.
...APPELLANTS
(SHRI RAJU RAM RAHI, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
AND
1. VIPIN KUMAR
2. BHUPINDER KUMAR
3. RAVINDER KUMAR
SONS OF ROOP CHAND,
RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE RACHHIALU, P.O. BANDI,
TEHSIL & DISTRICT KANGRA,
::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2022 20:04:48 :::CIS
RFA Nos. 357, 353, 354, 355 & 356 OF 2011
...4...
HIMACHAL PRADESH.
(Ref. Petition No.12-K/05/2003)
...RESPONDENTS
Decided on : 2.5.2022
.
Whether approved for reporting?
These appeals coming on for hearing this day, the Court
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Present Appeals have been preferred against
common Award dated 7.10.2010, passed by Reference
Court in RBT Ref. Case No.50-K/05/03, titled as Shakuntla
Devi v. Collector, Land Acquisition (Gaggal Air Port); RBT Ref.
Case No.52-K/05/03, titled as Roshan Lal & another v.
Collector, Land Acquisition (Gaggal Air Port); RBT Ref. Case
No.51-K/05/03, titled as Balbir Singh v. Collector, Land
Acquisition (Gaggal Air Port); RBT Ref. Case No.14-K/05/03,
titled as Tara Devi & another v. Collector, Land Acquisition
(Gaggal Air Port); and RBT Ref. Case No.12-K/05/03, titled as
Vipin Kumar & others v. Collector, Land Acquisition (Gaggal
Air Port), alongwith lead case RBT Ref. Case No.45-K/05/03,
titled as Ranjit Singh v. Collector, Land Acquisition (Gaggal
Air Port), appeal arising wherefrom RFA No.305 of 2011 has
already been decided by this Court vide judgment dated
25.4.2022.
RFA Nos. 357, 353, 354, 355 & 356 OF 2011
...5...
2. In present case, land situated in Tika Rachhialu
Mauza Bandi, Tehsil and District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh,
was acquired by the State for extension of Air Port at
.
Gaggal, by initiating process under Land Acquisition Act
(hereinafter referred to as the Act), after issuing
Notification dated 28.6.1999, under Section 4 of the Act.
Notifications, under Sections 6, 7 and 17 of the Act, were
issued on 30.12.1999. Land belonging to large number of
Land Owners was acquired in the process. The Land
Acquisition Collector, vide common Award dated
16.11.2000, had determined the value of land, ranging from
`2,62,100/- to `20,14,500/- per Kanal, on the basis of its
nature and classification.
3. Land Owners preferred Land References, under
Section 18 of the Act, which were decided by the Reference
Court (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court), Kangra
at Dharamshala, by passing various common Awards by
clubbing groups of cases filed by the Land Owners.
4. In present case, six Land Reference Petitions
have been disposed of by the Reference Court vide
common Award dated 7.10.2010.
RFA Nos. 357, 353, 354, 355 & 356 OF 2011
...6...
5. The Reference Court had determined the
compensation by taking the value of land @ `750/- per
square metre, irrespective of its classification and
.
capability.
6. The aforesaid value of land has been determined
by the Reference Court on the basis of Award dated
29.9.2008 (Ex. PW-1/A), passed by learned Additional
District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Ref. Case No.55-
K/2003, titled as Harbhagwant Singh v. The Sub Divisional
Collector, wherein value of land of the same village,
acquired vide same Notification and for the same purpose,
was determined @ `750/- per square metre.
7. In Harbhagwant Singh's case, State had
preferred Appeal RFA No.111 of 2009, titled as The State of
Himachal Pradesh and another v. Harbhagwant Singh, and
the said Appeal was allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this
court vide judgment dated 28.11.2016.
8. It is further not in dispute that the judgment
passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in RFA No. 111
of 2009 along with connected matters was assailed before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petitions (C)
No.22312-22329 of 2017 titled as 'Sawrup Singh etc. etc.
RFA Nos. 357, 353, 354, 355 & 356 OF 2011
...7...
versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another, which were
decided on 11.09.2019, allowing and the same in the
following terms:
.
"O R D E R
Leave granted. After hearing the learned
counsel appearing for the parties at some length,
with broad consensus, we set aside the impugned
order(s) passed by the High Court and permit the
appellants to file application(s) for adducing
additional evidence in the form of Sale Deed, if any,
and also other evidence before the High Court, in
which case the High Court shall consider the same in
accordance with law and take fresh decision in the
matter.
r In view of the above, the appeals are allowed."
9. None of the parties had adduced any additional
evidence after aforesaid remand and Appeal RFA No.111 of
2009, titled as The State of Himachal Pradesh and another v.
Harbhagwant Singh, which was remanded by the Supreme
Court alongwith other connected matters for deciding
afresh, was decided on 21.12.2019 alongwith identical
Appeals with lead case RFA No.351 of 2011, titled as State
of Himachal Pradesh v. Sawrup Singh.
10. Another bunch of such Appeals, with lead case
RFA No.112 of 2008, titled as Sub Divisional Officer(Civil)-
cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Kangra v. Harnam Singh,
alongwith connected matters, was dismissed by a
RFA Nos. 357, 353, 354, 355 & 356 OF 2011
...8...
Coordinate Bench of this Court on 24.7.2017, with following
reasons:
"4. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant has
.
filed the instant appeals questioning the award
primarily on the ground that the sale deed, Ext.
PW4/A, of an area of ½ Marla even in the same
revenue estate could not have been cited as an
exemplar while calculating the compensation for a
larger area of land. In addition to, it is argued that
exemplar, Ext. PW4/A, could not have been
otherwise made basis for the enhanced
compensation particularly when the land involved
therein was admittedly sold after notification under
Section 4 of the Act had been issued.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties
and have also gone through the record of the cases
carefully.
6. It is not in dispute that save and except, the
exemplar, Ext. PW4/A, there is no other sale deed
available on record, which pertains to the land in
question and, therefore, no fault can be found with
the court when in absence of exemplar of large piece
of land. This issue is no longer res integra in view of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Atma
Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2008) 2 SCC 568.
It is apt to reproduce paras 7 and 8 of the judgment,
which reads thus:
"7. The claimant-appellants (landowners) had
filed copies of four sale deeds which are Exs.
P-7, P-8, P-9 and P-10. In fact, Ex. P-7 is a copy
of a sale deed by which Laxman Singh bought
some land in village Chhapra on 28.7.1982,
which itself became subject matter of
acquisition. Laxman Singh had deposed that he
had bought the land for construction of shops.
All these four sale deeds related to sale
transactions prior to the issuance of the
notification under Section 4 of the Act on
RFA Nos. 357, 353, 354, 355 & 356 OF 2011
...9...
9.2.1983. The High Court excluded Ex.P-8 from
consideration as it related to a very small piece
of land measuring 19 marlas only. The average
price of the three sale deeds viz. Ex. P-7, P-9
.
and P-10 came to little more than Rs.1,20,000/-
per acre. Apart from these three sale deeds, no
other exemplars were filed either by the State
of Haryana or by the landowners. The High
Court accepted the price exhibited by the
aforesaid three sale transactions which came
to little more than Rs.1,20,000/- per acre. It
thus recorded a finding that the market value
of the land was Rs.1,20,000/- per acre. In our
opinion, there being no other documentary
evidence, the view taken by the High Court
that the market value of the land was
Rs.1,20,000/- per acre is perfectly correct and
calls for no interference.
8. Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel
for the sugar mill has submitted that the
exemplars filed by the appellants were of very
small pieces of land and, therefore, they are
not safe guide to determine the market value
of the land. It may be mentioned here that
while determining the market value, the
potentiality of the land acquired has also to be
taken into consideration. The appellants have
led evidence to show that the acquired land
had the potentiality to be used for commercial,
industrial and residential purposes. PW.1
Rakesh Kumar had prepared a site plan which
showed that the acquired land was adjacent to
the abadi of Shahabad and abutted the
Shahabad-Ladwa Road. The site plan also
shows that there existed rice shellers, cold
storage, shops, godowns, a college and houses
etc. on both sides of Shahabad-Ladwa Road.
PW.2 Baldev Singh was Patwari of village
Chhapra in the year 1983. He deposed that all
the four villages viz. Kankar Shahbad, Chhapra,
Jandheri and Jhambara are adjacent to each
RFA Nos. 357, 353, 354, 355 & 356 OF 2011
...10...
other and the acquired land abutted the
Shahabad- Ladwa Road. He further deposed
that the acquired land was 2 kilometer from
G.T. Road and there were buildings, godowns,
.
a cinema hall, factories on both sides of the
Shahabad-Ladwa Road. Therefore, there can
be no manner of doubt that the acquired land
had the potentiality for being used for
commercial, industrial and residential purposes
and there was fair possibility of increase in its
market value in the near future. Therefore, the
fact that the exemplars filed by the appellants
were of the small pieces of land could not be a
ground to discard them specially when
exemplars of large pieces of land were not
available. They could, therefore, be used as a
safe guide for determining the market value of
the land."
7. Insofar as the contention of the appellant that the
sale deed, which was executed after notification
under Section 4 of the Act, could not form basis of
awarding the compensation is concerned, as
observed above, there is no other sale deed
available on record, which pertains to the land under
acquisition or in close proximity, therefore, in such
circumstances, even post notification instances can
be taken into account if they are very proximate,
genuine and the acquisition itself has not motivated
the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of
resultant improvement in development prospects as
has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer, (1988) 3 SCC 751.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar
Pradesh vs. Major Jitendra Kumar and others,
(1982) 2 SCC 382 had even approved the reliance
of sale deed, which was three years later than the
notification under Section 4 of the Act.
9. As regards the last contention of the appellant,
exemplars of the small pieces of land could not be
RFA Nos. 357, 353, 354, 355 & 356 OF 2011
...11...
made basis of determining enhanced compensation,
suffice it to say that the area, whether it is large or
small, is required to be determined on the basis of
individual holding and not by clubbing together the
.
individual holdings, treating them as a large area,
thereby differentiating them from similar land and
applying a lower market value to such holdings. This
was so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Thakarsibhai Devjibhai vs. Executive Engineer,
(2001) 9 SCC 584.
10. Apart from what has been observed
hereinabove, it would be noticed that in terms of
exemplar, Ext. PW4/A, the land measuring 30 square
metres had been sold by one Giano Devi to Krishan
and Madan Lal for a consideration of Rs.45,000/-,
which works out to Rs.1500 per square metre. As
against this amount, the learned could below has
only awarded a sum of Rs.750/- per square metre
and, therefore, I really do not find any reason for the
appellant to be aggrieved.
11. Having said so, I find no merit in these appeals,
which are dismissed accordingly, leaving the
parties to bear their own costs. Pending
application(s), if any, also stands dismissed."
11. On the basis of aforesaid pronouncements, a
Coordinate Bench of this Court dismissed another group of
Appeals, including RFA No.111/2009 (Appeal in Reference
Case No.55-K/2003, titled Harbhagwant Singh v. The Sub
Divisional Collector), with leading case RFA No.351 of 2011,
titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sawrup Singh, vide
judgment dated 21.12.2019. In all those Appeals, land was
acquired in same village vide same Notification and for the
RFA Nos. 357, 353, 354, 355 & 356 OF 2011
...12...
same purpose and the Land Acquisition Collector had
announced the Award(s) on 7.9.2020 and 16.11.2020.
12. The Reference Court determined the value of
.
land at uniform rate of `750/- per square metre, which was
assailed by the Appellants by filing Appeals, including RFA
No.351 of 2011 and RFA No.111 of 2009. Those Appeals
were dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, on the
basis of pronouncements of this Court in RFA No.112 of
2009.
13. The present appeals are squarely covered by the
pronouncement dated 21.12.2019 in RFA No.351 of 2011,
tilted as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sawrup Singh and RFA
No.111 of 2009, titled as The State of Himachal Pradesh and
another v. Harbhagwant Singh and other connected
matters, which have been decided on the basis of RFA
No.112 of 2009, titled as Sub Divisional Officer(Civil)-cum-
Land Acquisition Collector, Kangra v. Harnam Singh, decided
on 24.7.2017. Further, reasons stated in Harnam Singh's
case shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present Appeals
also and the impugned award passed by Reference Court is
upheld. Accordingly, the Land Owners shall be entitled for
compensation @ `750/- per square metre alongwith
RFA Nos. 357, 353, 354, 355 & 356 OF 2011
...13...
consequential benefits, including statutory benefits as per
law.
Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed and
.
disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.
( Vivek Singh Thakur )
May 2, 2022(sd) Judge.
r to
