Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sat Pal And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another on 1 January, 2024
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
SHIMLA
RFA No. 143 of 2016 a/w
RFA Nos.213 and 214 of 2016
.
Decided on 01.01.2024
RFA No.143 of 2016
Sat Pal and others ...Appellants
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and another ...Respondents
of
RFA No.213 of 2016
Rattani Devi and others Appellants
rt Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and another ...Respondents
RFA No.214 of 2016
Jagdish Sanju and others ...Appellants
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and another ...Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
For the appellants: Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Somesh Sharma, Advocate,
for the appellants, in all the appeals.
For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional
Advocate General, in all the appeals.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
These three appeals arise out of the award passed
by the learned Collector dated 08.01.2010, i.e., award No.2 of
.
2010, which was passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984
by the Collector under Section 11 thereof, for the construction
of Dawanti to Gamber Khad Link Marg in Revenue Village-
Danwati, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. As common
of
factual and legal issues are involved in these appeals and as all
these three appeals were heard together, therefore, they are
rt
being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of these
appeals are that the land of the appellants was acquired for the
construction of Dawanti to Gamber Khad Link Marg in Revenue
Village-Danwati, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P.
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, was
issued on 13.06.2008. After complying with the statutory
formalities, award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act,
was announced on 08.01.2010, in terms of the award passed
by the learned Acquisition Collector, the compensation payable
to the appellants was determined as under:-
"8. Enquiry into measurement, market value of land and
claims U/s 11 of the Act:-
(a) Measurement of land:-All the persons interest have
.
shown their acceptance of the demarcation of the acquire land
as given U/s 8 of the Act by the Naib Tehsildar of this office.
(b) Market value of land:-The one year average market
value of Mauza Danwati was procured by the field staff and the
of
same was sent to District Collector, Solan for approval. The
District Collector Solan, District Solan, H.P. vide office letter
rt
No.DRA/1-56/88-18-8196 dated 18.08.2009. The same is
reproduced classification wise as under:-
Classification of land Rate per bigha Rate per biswa
1. Kuhal Rs.10,27,500/- Rs.51,375/-
2. Katul Rs.7,50,000/- Rs.37,500/-
3. Bangar-1 Rs.5,62,500/- Rs.28,125/-
4. Bangar-II Rs.3,75,000/- Rs.18,750/-
5. Bangar-III Rs.1,87,500/- Rs.9,375/-
6. Bangar Kadeem Rs.67,500/- Rs.3,375/-
7. Ghasni Rs.45,000/- Rs.2,250/-
In the instance case 0-4 biswa land is cultivated and
1-14 bigha uncultivated out of total land measuring 1-18 bigha.
The one year average market value approved by the District
Collector, Solan, appears to be fair, adequate, reasonable and
rational. Therefore, the market value of land under acquisition
is hereby determined classification wise i.e. Bangar-III (o-4
.
biswa) for cultivable and Charand (1-14 bigha) for uncultivated
respectively and the total compensation is worked out as
under:-
A) Compensation:
of
(i) Market value of land
U/s 23(1) First Clause. Rs.1,14,000.00
(ii)
rt
12% Additional amount on
Market value of land w.e.f.
13.06.2008 to 08.01.2010,
i.e. 575 days. Rs.21,551.00
(iii) 30% Solatium. Rs.34,200.00
Total compensation (i+ii+iii) Rs.1,69,751.00
Hence, it hereby assess and determine
Rs.1,69,751.00 (Rupees One Lac, Sixty None Thousand Seven
Hundred and Fifty One Only) an amount of compensation for
which the persons interest are entitled to claim and to receive
as per the provisions of the Act."
3. Feeling aggrieved, the land owners filed Reference
Petitions under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. These
Reference Petitions were answered by the learned Reference
Court in terms of award dated 14.05.2015, vide which, the
award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector was modified
.
by the learned Reference Court as under:-
"33. As a sequel to my aforementioned
discussion, petition is partly allowed with no
order as to costs and the market value of the
of
acquired land on the date of publication of the
notification under Section 4 of the Act is
assessed
rt at Rs.9,375/0 per biswa and
petitioner is held entitled to the excess
payment with further statutory interest under
Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Act thereon,
including interest under Section 23(1)(A) of the
Act on the solatium amount. Reference is
answered accordingly. Memo of costs be
prepared. File after due completion be
consigned to the record room."
4. Still not satisfied with the compensation awarded to
them, the landlords have filed these three appeals.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants argued
that the learned Reference Court erred in all the matters in not
awarding compensation to the land owners for the Tuni Trees
standing thereupon as well as for the damages suffered by the
land owners on account of the construction of the road, which
adversely affected, other property of their, which was not
.
otherwise acquired. He further argued that the enhancement
made by the learned Reference Court in the compensation
payable to the appellants was not appropriate and the landlords
were entitled for compensation @Rs. 28,152/- per biswa. He
of
submitted that as the land was acquired for the commercial
purpose, therefore, the Reference Court should have enhanced
rt
compensation, keeping this aspect in view, which was not
done. Accordingly, learned Senior Counsel prayed that these
three appeals be allowed and the award passed by the learned
Reference Court be modified by ordering that the appellants be
compensated for the land acquired @Rs.28,152/- per biswa
alongwith or other statutory benefits.
6. The appeals were opposed by the State. Learned
Additional Advocate General argued that the compensation
awarded to the appellants is fair and just. He submitted that as
the appellants failed to prove that there either were any Tuni
Trees upon the acquired land or the construction of the road as
otherwise caused any damage to the remaining property of the
appellants, therefore, their said contentions were rightly
rejected by the learned Reference Court. He also argued that
.
the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court was
based on the basis of evidence on record and the appellants
were not entitled for enhanced compensation at the rate, which
is being claimed by them.
of
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I
have also carefully gone through the award passed by the
rt
learned Reference Court as also the record of the case.
8. For the purpose of the constriction of the road in
issue, in all, 1-18 bigha of land was acquired. In terms of the
award passed by the learned Collector, 0-4 biswa of land was
cultivable and 1-14 bigha uncultivable. The average market
value of Mauza Danwanti obtained by the field staff,
classification wise was found to be as under:-
Classification of land Rate per bigha Rate per biswa
1. Kuhal Rs.10,27,500/- Rs.51,375/-
2. Katul Rs.7,50,000/- Rs.37,500/-
3. Bangar-1 Rs.5,62,500/- Rs.28,125/-
4. Bangar-II Rs.3,75,000/- Rs.18,750/-
5. Bangar-III Rs.1,87,500/- Rs.9,375/-
6. Bangar Kadeem Rs.67,500/- Rs.3,375/-
7. Ghasni Rs.45,000/- Rs.2,250/-
.
9. Learned Collector after taking into consideration the
fact that out of the acquired land measuring 1-18 bigha, 0-4
biswa was cultivable and 1-14 bighas was uncultivable,
assessed the market value classification wise. It determined
of
market value of 0-4 biswa of cultivable land on the average
market value of Bangar-III, classification of land, which was
rt
Rs.9,375/- per biswa. For the balance, 1-14 bighas of
uncultivable land, it assessed the market value, as per the
classification Charand. Learned Reference Court while
deciding the Reference Petitions filed under Section 18 of the
Land Acquisition Act, firstly, held that none of the land owners
was able to lead any cogent evidence to demonstrate that there
was either Tuni Trees over the acquired land or in the course of
the construction of the road, some portion of the remaining land
of the land owners was damaged. It further went on to hold that
the sale transaction being relied upon by the land owners were
relatable to a period about 1 & ½ year after the issuance of the
notification U/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and further it was
also not clear as to what was the distance of the land involved
in the sale transaction from the acquired land or the
.
classification thereof. It held that since District Collector Solan,
H.P., had assessed average value of Banjar-3, type of land at
Rs.9,375/- per biswa and assessed market value of 4 biswa of
acquired land on the basis of this classification, the above
of
mentioned value should be held as market value of the
acquired land, as when the land was acquired for the same
rt
purpose, the value thereof could not be assessed on the basis
of classification and nature ignoring the purpose for which it
was acquired. On this reasoning, it enhanced the market value
of the acquired land by assessing the same to be Rs.9,375/-
per biswa.
10. Having carefully perused the entire record as well
as the statements of the parties on record as also the evidence,
this Court does not finds any infirmity in the findings returned by
the learned Reference Court that the land owners were neither
able to prove that there were any Tuni Trees standing upon the
acquired land or the fact that in the course of the construction
of the road some other land of their was damage. The findings
returned on said issues by the learned Reference Court calls
for no interference as there is nothing on record to prove these
.
allegations of the appellants.
11. Now, coming to the issue as to whether the land
owners are entitled to compensation at the rate, as has been
awarded by the learned Reference Court or Rs.28,152/- per
of
biswa, as claimed by the land owners, this Court is of the
considered view that the compensation as has been awarded
rt
by the learned Reference Court is fair and just. Before me it
could not be demonstrated that the classification acquired land
was Bangar-I. In fact, the Collector Land Acquisition in the
award announced by him had held that out of 1-18 bigha of
land acquired 0-4 biswa was cultivable, for which, the market
value should be at the rate, which stood approved for the
classification Bangar-III. In the Reference Petitions, which were
filed by the land owners under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, there was no such plea raised by the land
owners/appellants that the classification of the land acquired
relatable to the cultivable part thereof was Bangar-I and not
Bangar-III. Besides this, the claim was made for compensation
@Rs.20 lac per bigha, but this was not substantiated by leading
any cogent evidence. The contention of the land owners that
.
the land was acquired for commercial purpose also, belies logic
for the reason that the same was acquired for construction of a
link road, which cannot be termed to be a project undertaken
for commercial purpose. Therefore, in these circumstances, as
of
this Court is satisfied that the award passed by the learned
Reference Court is fair, just and based on material, borne out
rt
from the record and also does not suffers from any perversity or
illegality, these appeals are hereby dismissed. Pending
miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
January, 01 2024
(Vinod)
