Himachal Pradesh High Court
General Manager vs Raghubir Singh And Others on 7 January, 2023
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
RFA No. 104 of 2015 a/w RFAs No. 105 to
109 of 2015, 239 of 2015, 141 & 343 of
.
2018 and 30 of 2022 and Cross Objections
No. 8 to 12 and 15 of 2015 and 44 of 2018
Decided on: 07.01.2023
_______________________________________________________________________
RFA No. 104 of 2015
General Manager, Northern Railway ....Appellant
Versus
Raghubir Singh and others ...Respondents
RFA No. 105 of 2015
General Manager, Northern Railway ....Appellant
Versus
Tarsem Lal and others ...Respondents
RFA No. 106 of 2015
General Manager, Northern Railway ....Appellant
Versus
Avtar Singh and others ...Respondents
RFA No. 107 of 2015
General Manager, Northern Railway ....Appellant
Versus
Charan Dass (since deceased) through
L.Rs Biasa Devi and others ...Respondents
RFA No. 108 of 2015
General Manager, Northern Railway ....Appellant
Versus
Smt. Kashmir Devi and others ...Respondents
::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2023 20:31:03 :::CIS
2
RFA No. 109 of 2015
General Manager, Northern Railway ....Appellant
.
Versus
Ram Prakash and others ...Respondents
RFA No. 239 of 2015
General Manager, Northern Railway ....Appellant
Versus
Mehar Singh and others ...Respondents
RFA No. 141 of 2018
General Manager, Northern Railway ....Appellant
Versus
Raj Kumar and others ...Respondents
RFA No. 343 of 2018
General Manager, Northern Railway ....Appellant
Versus
Dev Raj (since deceased) through L.Rs
namely Champa Devi and others ...Respondents
RFA No. 30 of 2022
General Manager, Northern Railway ....Appellant
Versus
Smt. Savitri Devi and others ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the appellant(s) : Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI, in all the
appeals.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2023 20:31:03 :::CIS
3
For the respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Atharv Sharma, Advocate for the respective
respondents in the respective appeals and
.
for the cross objectors in all the cross
objections.
: Mr. Pushpender Jaswal and Baldev Negi,
Additional Advocate Generals, for
respondent-State, in the respective appeals.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
RFA No. 104 of 2015 a/w RFAs No. 105 to
109 of 2015, 239 of 2015, 141 & 343 of
2018 and 30 of 2022
With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, all
these appeals are being disposed of by way of a common judgment
as the issues involved in these appeals are same and similar.
2. The appellant has challenged the award dated
31.03.2012, in terms whereof the reference petitions preferred by
the land owners under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, who
were aggrieved by the award passed by the Collector (Railways),
Una, H.P. dated 12.09.2001, were answered by the learned
Reference Court in the following terms:-
"In view of my findings on the issues above, the
petitioners are entitled to compensation at the rate of
Rs. 1,30,000/- per kanal of land. The petitioners are
awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the
enhanced amount of compensation under Section
23(1-A) from the date of notification under Section 4
up to the date of announcement of award by LAC
under Section 11 of the Act, i.e. w.e.f. 1.12.2000 to
.
15.11.2001. Further, the petitioners are entitled to
solatium at the rate of 30% on account of compulsory
acquisition of land on the enhanced amount of
compensation. Apart from this, the petitioners, are
entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from
one year from the date of announcement of award by
LAC i.e. 16.11.2001 and thereafter at the rate of 15%
per annum till the amount of compensation is
deposited n the Court. A copy of this award be placed
on the files of other consolidated reference petitions.
Memo of costs be prepared. The file after due
completion, be consigned to record room."
3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present
appeals are that land was acquired in village Bhera, Tehsil Amb,
District Una, H.P., owned and possessed by the land owners of the
said village for the purpose of construction of Nangal-Talwara
Railway line, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
Notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act on 01.12.2000 and this was followed by issuance of
notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated
20.03.2001. Objections were called by the Land Acquisition
Collector qua the proposed acquisitions. After following the
statutory process, award was announced by the Collector
.
(Railways), i.e. Award No. 14, dated 12.09.2001, in terms whereof,
the market value of the land of the owners, which was acquired for
the purpose of construction of aforementioned Railway Line, was
assessed as under:-
"Sr. No. Kind of land Cost per kanal
1. Chahi 9,364-69
2. DoFasli Abbal 7,549-91
3. Ek Fasli Abbal 5,705-14
4. Do Fasli Abbal -do-
5. Banjar Kadim Jadid 204-97
6. Kharkana/Kharaiter 409-95
7. Gair mumkin badi -
8. Other Gair Mumkin 204-97
9. Bageecha 7,549-91"
4. Feeling aggrieved, the land owners preferred reference
petitions under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the
same were disposed of by the learned Reference Court in terms of
the award which is under challenge by way of present appeals. As
already mentioned hereinabove, the reference petitions preferred
by the land owners were disposed of by the learned Reference
Court by holding that the reference petitioners were entitled to
compensation @ 1,30,000/- per kanal of land alongwith interest at
the rate of 12% per annum and other benefits mentioned therein
.
on the ground that in terms of another award passed by learned
District Judge, Una, i.e. the Award which was on record before the
learned Reference Court, Ext. P-25, passed in Land Reference
Petition No. 17 of 2009, titled as Dharam Chand vs. The Land
Acquisition Collector, Una and another, dated 30.07.2011,
pertaining the acquisition of the land of adjacent village which was
also acquired for the same purpose, i.e. laying down of Nangal-
Talwara Broad Gauge Railway Line, the rate of land of the land
owners was assessed at Rs. 1,34,350/- per kanal.
5. Mr. Balram Sharma, learned Deputy Solicitor General
of India has argued that the award passed by the learned
Reference Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the
learned Court has erred in not appreciating that the land owners
had not proved on record by leading even an iota of evidence the
potentiality etc. of their land being akin to the one which was
subject matter of the acquisition in award Ext. P-25. He further
argued that in fact there were four awards on record before the
learned Reference Court, yet it chose to grant compensation to the
land owners on the basis of the highest price determined by the
learned Reference Court, which was done in a totally whimsical
manner, which has greatly prejudiced the interest of the appellant.
Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India has also argued that as
the land owners failed to lead any evidence from which it could be
.
inferred that value of their land indeed was Rs. 350 per square
metre, therefore also, the award passed by learned Reference
Court is not sustainable as the Collector (Railways) had correctly
assessed the value of the land of the land owners and in fact, there
was no occasion for the learned Reference Court to have had
enhanced the compensation so granted by the Collector (Railways).
Accordingly, a prayer has been made that the present appeals be
allowed and the award be set aside.
6. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the
respondents/land owners has argued that the award which has
been passed by the learned Reference Court, by no stretch of
imagination, can be said to be an exaggerated award and in fact
land owners are entitled to much more than what has been
awarded by the learned Reference Court. Learned Senior Counsel
further argued that the award passed by learned Reference Court
is based upon another adjudication by the learned District Judge,
Una, pertaining to the acquisition of the land for the same project
of an adjacent village and therefore, the contention of learned
Deputy Solicitor General of India that the said award could not
have been relied upon for the purposes of determining the value of
the land in case of present land owners is without any merit.
Learned Senior Counsel further argued that otherwise also it is
settled law that when the land is acquired for same purpose, then
.
same rate has be granted to the owners de hors the classification
thereof and further in view of the fact that the award passed by the
learned Reference Court in Ext. D-25 has otherwise attained
finality, therefore also, there is no illegality committed by the
learned Reference Court by basing his award on Ext. D-25.
Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the contention of
learned Deputy Solicitor General of India that there is no
contiguity between the two villages, i.e. village of the land owners
subject matter of the reference petition in Ext. D-25 and the
village, subject matter of the present appeals, is incorrect as
appellants neither lead any evidence to demonstrate that these two
villages were far off as alleged whereas in fact village, which was
the subject matter of acquisition in Ext. D-25 and the village
which was the subject matter of the present appeals, are
contiguous to each other.
7. Having heard learned Deputy Solicitor General of India
as also learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/
land owners and carefully gone through the award passed by the
learned Reference Court, this Court is of the considered view that
the award passed by the learned Reference Court calls for no
interference. As already mentioned by me hereinabove, the land in
issue was acquired for the purpose of construction of Nangal-
Talwara Railway Line. The village of the present land owners is
.
village Bhera, Tehsil Amb, District Una, HP. A perusal of Ext. D-25
demonstrates that land therein, which was acquired for the
purposes of construction of Railway Line was in village Dilwan,
Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. This demonstrates that the villages
in both the awards were in Tehsil Amb of District Una. That being
the case, there is no merit in the contention of learned Deputy
Solicitor General of India that there is no contiguity between the
villages, subject matter of Award Ext. P-25 and in the present
appeals. Incidentally, the argument of learned Senior Counsel for
the respondents/land owners whereby he submitted that village
Bhera and village Dilwan are contiguous to each other, could not
be proved to be incorrect during the course of arguments by
learned Deputy Solicitor General of India. Nothing was placed on
record from which it could be inferred that Ext P-25 i.e. award
relied upon by the learned Reference Court, in determining the
rate of the land of the land owners in the present matters, has not
attained finality. That being the case, this Court is of the
considered view that as the intent of the Land Acquisition Act, on
one hand, is to compulsorily acquire the land for public purposes
and to fairly compensate the land owners, on the other hand, in
lieu of said acquisition, there is no perversity in the act of the
learned Reference Court in giving best possible rates to the land
owner for acquisition of their land. The rate which has been
.
arrived at by the learned Reference Court is not based on whims
and conjectures but is based on the award which has been passed
by the learned Reference Court relatable to the acquisition of the
nearby land for the same project. Notification under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act in the present case was issued on
01.12.2000 whereas the date issuance of notification under
Section 4 as far as Ext. P-25 is concerned is 01.12.2000/
31.03.2001. This also demonstrates that the acquisition of land
besides being for the same purpose was also of nearby period, and
therefore also, this Court is of the considered view that the award
passed by learned Reference Court is a reasoned award and the
same calls for no interference.
8. At this stage, it is further relevant to state that the
present appellant had preferred certain other appeals also against
the present award before this Court, which were time barred and
the same were dismissed by this Court without condoning the
delay in filing the same, for example RFA No. 497 of 2014.
9. Accordingly, in view of above discussion, as this Court
does not find any merit in the present appeals, the same are
accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if
any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
Cross Objections No. 8 to 12 and 15 of 2015 and 44 of
10. Having heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
.
cross objectors as well as learned Deputy Solicitor General of
India, as this Court is of the considered view that the market
value, as has been assessed by the learned Reference Court, qua
the land of the land owners is just and reasonable, therefore, the
Court does not find any merit in the present cross objections and
the same are also accordingly dismissed.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
January 07, 2023
(narender)
