Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors vs State Of H.P. And Others on 1 May, 2023
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA
RFA No.64 of 2016 with CO No. 149 of 2016
Date of decision: 01.05.2023
.
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
......Appellants
VersusSh. Balpur and Ors.
......Respondents
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting ?1
For the Appellants: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General
with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal
Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional
Advocates General with Mr. Rahul
Thakur and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy
r Advocates General.
For Respondent: Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Munish Datwalia, Advocate, for
respondent No.1.
Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate, for
Advocate, for respondent No.2, 6 to 8.
Mr. Romesh Verma, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Hitesh Thakur, Advocate, for
respondent No.5.
___________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma,J. (oral)
CMP No. 4733 of 2023
By way of instant application, prayer has been made by
the applicants for deletion of names of proforma respondents No. 2 to
10. No reply is intended to be filed to the instant application by the
non-applicant.
2. It has been averred in the application that persons
proposed to be deleted never participated in the reference proceedings
Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
pending before the learned District Judge and were proceeded ex-
parte and as such, no prejudice, if any, would be caused to either of
the parties if their names are ordered to be deleted from the array of
.
the parties.
3. Having taken note to the fact that persons proposed to be
deleted from the array of the parties never contested their claim
before the reference court, there appears to be no impediment in
accepting the prayer made in the application and accordingly, same
is allowed and proforma respondents No. 2 to 10 are ordered to be
deleted from the array of the parties. Registry is directed to carry out
necessary corrections in the memo of parties on the basis of amended
memo of parties annexed with the application. The application is
disposed of.
RFA No. 64 with Cross Objection No. 149 of 2016
4. By way of aforesaid appeal filed under Section 54 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as well
as Cross Objection filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil
Procedure (hereinafter after referred to as 'CPC'), challenge has been
laid to a common award dated 27.06.2015 passed by learned District
Judge (Forest), Shimla in Land Reference Petition No.4-S/4 of
2014/11, titled as: Balpur vs. State of H.P. and Others, alongwith
other connected Land Reference petitions, as described in the award.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the record of the case.
6. It is not in dispute that suit land belonging to claimants-
respondents came to be acquired for public purpose; namely;
construction of "Thana - Turan Road" and acquisition proceedings
commenced with the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the
Act on 01.08.2005. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'LAC')
.
passed award No.46/08 on 29.09.2008 and awarded compensation of
the acquired land as per the classification of the land mentioned in
the award.
7. Claimant(s), who is respondent in aforesaid appeal, being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the amount awarded by LAC,
preferred Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Act, seeking
therein enhancement of compensation. Learned District Judge
(Forest), Shimla, after framing issue and recording evidence of both
the parties as well as after hearing the parties, vide impugned award
dated 27.06.2015, re-determined the market value of the acquired
land @ Rs.1627.44/- per square meter.
8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
award dated 27.06.2015, passed by learned District Judge (Forest),
Shimla, the appellants-State, has approached this Court for setting
aside the impugned award.
9. It is not in dispute before this Court that similar situate
claimants, whose land also came to be acquired for construction of
"Thana - Turan Road" in the acquisition proceedings commenced
with the publication of Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act
on 01.08.2005, had filed land reference petitions before the learned
District Judge (Forest), Shimla, praying therein to enhance the
compensation awarded by LAC, which were decided and the
compensation enhanced. The award(s) so passed were under
challenge in this Court in several other appeals. One of such appeal,
RFA No.368 of 2014, titled as The Himachal Pradesh Power
Corporation Limited and Another vs. Narayan Singh & Others (for
.
short "Narayan Singh's case") came to be decided alongwith its
connected matters by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment
dated 12.10.2018. This judgment, in turn, has been followed in RFA
No.222/2015, titled as The Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation
Limited and another vs. Chanan Singh and others alongwith
analogous matters, decided on 12.10.2018. It is seen that this Court,
on re-appraisal of the given facts and circumstances as well as the
evidence available on record, has re-determined the market value of
the acquired land as Rs.2700/- per centiare and enhanced the
compensation alongwith consequential statutory benefits accordingly.
10. Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General,
representing the appellants-State, while fairly acknowledging the
factum with regard to passing of judgment dated 12.10.2018 in
Narayan Singh's case (supra), conceded that claimant in the case at
hand is also entitled to enhanced market value of acquired land at
the rate of Rs.2700/- per centiare alongwith all consequential
statutory benefits as per the said judgment.
11. At this stage, it may be noticed that, Claimants-Cross
Objectors have filed Cross Objections bearing Cross Objection No.149
of 2016, under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC, praying therein for
enhancement of compensation of award amount passed by learned
District Judge (Forest) qua the acquired land.
12. Since this Court has held the claimants entitled for
enhanced market value of acquired land at the rate of Rs.2700/- per
centiare alongwith consequential statutory benefits, instead of
.
Rs.1627.44, in view of judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in Narayan Singh's case (supra), Mr. B.C. Verma, learned
Additional Advocate General, fairly conceded that cross-
objector/claimant is also entitled to similar enhancement of
compensation i.e. Rs.2700/- per centiare alongwith consequential
statutory benefits qua his acquired land as per share.
13. Mr.B.S. Chauhan, learned Senior Counsel representing
claimants-cross objectors, also acceded to the market value of the
land determined in Narayan Singh's case (supra), and, accordingly, it
is ordered that directions contained in Narayan Singh's case supra,
shall mutatis mutandis apply to the cases of claimants/cross
objectors also.
14. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made
hereinabove as well as fair stand adopted by learned Additional
Advocate General representing the appellants-State, the
aforementioned appeal is dismissed and Cross Objection is allowed
and it is ordered that directions contained in RFA No. 368 of 2014,
titled: The Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Limited and
Another vs. Narayan Singh and Others case supra shall mutatis
mutandis apply in the present cases also.
15. Appellant-State is directed to deposit the entire award
amount in the Registry of this Court within a period of eight weeks
from today, if not already deposited.
16. Interim order, if any, is vacated. All the miscellaneous
applications are disposed of.
.
May 01, 2023 (Sandeep Sharma)
manjit Judge
r to
