Decided On: 11.10.2023 vs Rashpal Singh And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 16155 HP

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
                        SHIMLA




                                                                     .
                                        RFA No. :                329 of 2018





                                        Decided on:              11.10.2023
    The Land Acquisition Collector, Shahnehar
    Fatehpur and another                                         ....Appellants.





                 Versus
    Rashpal Singh and others                                     ...Respondents.
    Coram





    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
    For the appellants          :       M/s Pushpender Jaswal and
                                        Rupinder Singh, Additional
                    r                   Advocate Generals with M/s

                                        Ranjna Patial and Sumit Sharma,
                                        Deputy Advocate General and Mr.
                                        Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer.


    For the respondents      None for the respondents,
                                :
                             proceeded ex parte.
    Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this appeal, the appellants-State assail

the award passed by learned Additional District Judge (II),

Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. in Reference

Case No. 5-J/13/2010, titled as Sheela Devi and another vs.

Land Acquisition Collector and other connected matter, dated

01.08.2017, in terms whereof, the Reference Petition filed

under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by the

respondents herein was allowed in the following terms:-

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

"28. In view of my findings on the above issue, the reference petitions succeed and the same are allowed. The petitioners are held

.

entitled to the enhanced market value at the uniform rate of Rs. 23,50,000/- per hectare, for

all categories of the acquired land, as per their share recorded in the statement under Section 19 of the Act. In additional to the said market value of the land, they shall be entitled to an amount

calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on the enhanced r market value for the period commencing from the date of publication of the

notification under Section 4 of the Act (April 3, 2006) to the date of the Collector's award dated February 16, 2008, under Section 23(1-A) of the

Act. Petitioners shall also be entitled to a sum of equivalent to 30% of the aforesaid market value

of the land, in consideration of the compulsory nature of acquisition under Section 23(2) of the

Act. In additional to that, the petitioners shall be entitled to interest on the sum awarded by the

Collector as compensation, at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year, that is, w.e.f. 16.2.2008, i.e. the date of award and at the rate of 15% per annum for the remaining period i.e. w.e.f. 16.2.2009 to the date of deposit of enhanced compensation in the Court. The amount of compensation already paid to the petitioner be adjusted and deducted from the enhanced

compensation payable. The twenty-six reference petitions stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Memo(s) of costs be prepared."

.

2. Mr. Rajat Chauhan, learned Law Officer has

argued that the award passed by learned Reference Court is

bad as while passing the impugned award, learned Reference

Court erred in not appreciating that one year purchase price

of the land stood worked out to Rs. 5,28,000/- per hectare,

which was taken into consideration by the learned Collector

while passing the award and the reliance placed upon by the

learned Reference Court upon Ext. P-2, which was the award

passed in Reference Case No. 104-J/13/2010, titled as Babu

Ram vs. LAC, was totally unwarranted as there was not only

distance between the land subject matter of the said award

and the land of the respondents but the land of the present

land owners was of inferior quality as compared to the land

involved in the other reference cases. Accordingly, on these

bases, the award passed by learned Reference Court has been

assailed. No other point was urged.

3. As none has appeared for the respondents,

accordingly they are ordered to be proceeded against ex parte.

4. Having heard learned Law Officer for the appellant

and having carefully perused the award under challenge, this

.

Court finds no reason to interfere with the award passed by

the learned Reference Court.

5. The land in issue, was acquired for the purpose of

the construction of Sidhatha, Medium Irrigation Project in

village Jaiser, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. The

Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was

issued in the H.P. Rajpatra on 25.03.2006 and in two daily

Newspapers on 03.04.2006. After the completion of process of

acquisition, the award was passed by the Collector on

16.02.2008, who determined the market value of the acquired

land at the following rates:-

         Sr. No. Kind of Land            Price per hectares





         1.     Aavi                     Rs.8,80,000-00

         2.     Bagicha Aavi Faldar      Rs.14,30,000-00





         3.     Gair Mumkin              Rs.1,92,5000-00

6. In the course of the adjudication of the Reference

Petition, learned Reference Court placed reliance upon the

award passed in Reference Case No. 104-J/13/2010, titled as

Babu Ram vs. LAC, decided on 29.04.2014 (Ext. P-2), which

was pertaining to acquisition of land for the same purpose,

i.e. the construction of Sidhatha Medium Irrigation Project

.

(supra). Learned Reference Court held the land owners were

entitled to the same fair market value as assessed in RC No.

104-J/13/2010, i.e. Rs. 23,50,000/- per hectares irrespective

of the class and category of the land.

7. During the course of the hearing of this appeal,

learned Law Officer could not dispute that it was a matter of

record that that the land, subject matter of the RC No. 104-

J/13/2010, stood acquired for the same purpose, for which,

the land subject matter of the present reference petition and

was adjacent. It could also not be demonstrated before the

Court that the award passed by learned Reference Court in

RC No. 104-J/13/2010 was modified or set aside in appeal

etc. by a superior Court.

8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Charan Dass vs. H.P.

Housing & Urban Development Authority2 has inter alia

been pleased to hold that one of the preferred and well

accepted methods adopted for ascertaining the market value

of the land in acquisition cases was the sale transactions on

or about the date of issue of Notification under Section 4 of

(2010) 13 SCC 398

the Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that it needs

little emphasis that the contemporaneous transactions or the

.

comparable sales have to be in respect of lands, which are

contiguous to the acquired land and are similar in nature

and potentiality and in the absence of sale deeds, the

judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisition of

lands, made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages

can be accepted as valid piece of evidence and provide a

sound basis to work out the market value of the land after

suitable adjustments with regard to positive and

negative factors enumerated in Sections 23 and 24 of

the Act.

9. Applying these principles to the present case,

herein the learned Reference Court has taken into

consideration the award that has been passed in respect of

the acquisition of law pertaining to the same Project, in

neighbouring village. That being the case, but natural, the

land owners in the present case, were entitled to the same fair

market value which was assessed as payable to the other land

owners whose land was also acquired for the same project.

Therefore, the reliance placed upon by learned Reference

Court in the award passed in RC No. 104-J/13/2010 cannot

be faulted with as it is a matter of record that the land was

acquired in both the cases for the same purpose.

.

10. Besides this, the grant of same fair market value

to the land owners of the acquired land, irrespective of class

and category, can also not be faulted with as it is settled law

that if the land has been acquired for the same purpose, then,

same fair market value thereof should be paid to the land

owners herein irrespective of class and category of the land.

In this view of the matter, as this Court finds no

merit in the present appeal, the same is accordingly

dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also

stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

October 11, 2023 (narender)