Himachal Pradesh High Court

Collector Land Acquisition & Another vs Ran Singh & Others on 1 May, 2024

Author: Virender Singh

Bench: Virender Singh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No. 76 of 2022 Decided on: 01.05.2024 Collector Land Acquisition & Another

                                           ... Appellants





                           Versus

    Ran Singh & others                              ...Respondents

___________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting?

___________________________________________________

For the Appellants: Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General.



    For the Respondents:       Ms. Parul Negi, Advocate vice
                               Mr.     Amit    K.   Dhumal,
                               Advocate for respondents No.
                               1(a) to 1(d).



                                  None     for            remaining
                                  respondents




    Virender Singh, Judge (oral).

The appellants have filed the present Regular

First Appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition

Act, (hereinafter referred to 'as the Act'), against the

award dated 19.8.2011, passed by the Court of learned

Additional District Judge, Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Reference Court').

2. Vide award dated 19.8.2011, a bunch of

Reference Petitions, was decided by the learned

Reference Court, lead whereof was Reference Petition No.

50 of 2003, titled as, 'Kamla Devi versus Collector Land

Acquisition, HPPWD & Another.'

3. Vide award dated 19.8.2011, impugned herein, by

the appellant, the learned Reference Court has answered

the above Reference Petitions, by granting the following

relief: r " In view of my aforesaid discussions, reference petitioners are allowed with costs and

the reference petitioners are held entitled to enahnace compensation at the rate of Rs. 31.30 per. Sq. meter in respect of acquired land. Further, the reference petitioners are also held entitled to

the following reliefs:

"a) the petitioners shall also be entitled to solatium @ 30% on the amount as stated aforesaid,

b) the reference petitioners shall also be entitled for

additional compensation @ 12% per annum under Section 23(1A( of the Act w.e.f. 08.08.1992, the date of publication of notification till the date of

award of the Collector, i.e. 7.12.1995 and

c) the reference petitioners shall also be entitled to interest under Section 28 of the Act on the amount assessed under sub section (1) of section 23 of the Act, the additional compensation worked out under subsection (1A) of section 23 of the Act, plus, solatium awarded under sub section 23 of the Act, at the rate of 9% per annum on the value assessed from the date of award and thereafter, @15% per

annum till the date of payment/deposit of the amount of compensation in accordance with Section 34 of the Act."

4. Parties to the present lis are hereinafter referred to

in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by

the learned Reference Court.

5. Brief facts leading to filing the present appeal,

before this Court, may be summed up as under:

5.1. The land of the petitioner Ran Singh was acquired

by the State for construction of SaroriRissa road. The

proceedings under Sections 6 and 7 of the Land

Acquisition Act were conducted and ultimately, award

No.18, dated 7.12.1995, was passed.

5.2. Since, the petitioner was not satisfied that the

market value of the acquired land, assessed by the Land

Acquisition Collector, as such, reference petition under

Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was filed before the

Land Acquisition Collector, with a request to forward the

same to the learned District Judge, for adjudication.

5.3. As per reference petition, the market value of the

acquired land has not been assessed, considering the

commercial potentiality of the acquired land. Market value

of the land in Mohal Alyana is stated to be very high. The

acquired land is stated to be adjoining to the boundaries

of notified area of Sarkaghat.

6. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been

made to assess the market value of the acquired land, by

considering the commercial potentiality of the same and

as highlighted in the reference petition.

6. When, put to notice, respondents have contested

the reference petition by filing preliminary objections that

the Land Acquisition Collector has wrongly awarded the

interest to the petitioner, from the date of taking

possession; and the petition is time barred.

6.1 On merits, the reference petition has been

contested by pleading that all the relevant factors have

been considered by the Land Acquisition Collector and

compensation, which was awarded to the petitioner, is

higher than the market value, prevalent in Mohal Alyana,

at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of

the Act. However, factual position with regard to

acquisition of land, has not been disputed.

7. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned

Reference Court has framed the following issues, vide

order dated 6.8.2005:

.

i) Whether the compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector is inadequate, if so what is the just and adequate compensation? OPP

ii) Relief.

8. Aggrieved from the said award, the present appeal

has been preferred, before this Court, mainly on the

ground that the learned Reference Court, has ignored

the plea of the respondents that there was no cultivable

land acquired, and the amount of compensation, has

been assessed, on the basis of guess work. The learned

Reference Court is stated to have wrongly relied upon

the revenue record, i.e. Jamabandi, in which, part of the

petitioners' land, which was acquired, has been shown

as 'Bagicha Kalahu faldar'.

9. Similarly, the award has been assailed on the

ground that the petitioner has not produced any

receipt/document, qua the damage to fruit bearing trees

and nonfruit bearing trees, as well as, to the cultivated

land and that the learned Reference Court has wrongly

awarded the damages, without taking into account this

fact.

10. On the basis of above facts, learned

Additional Advocate General has prayed that the appeal

may kindly be accepted and the impugned award may

kindly be set aside.

11. Mr. H.S. Rawat, learned Additional Advocate

General, appearing for the appellantsState has placed

on record the judgment dated 25.4.2023, passed by a

Coordinate Bench this Court, in a batch of petitions,

lead whereof is RFA No.174 of 2013, titled as,

'Principal Secretary, PWD and others versus Mehar

Chand & others', whereby matters have been remanded

back to the learned Reference Court, for deciding the

same afresh.

12. Those appeals were filed by the Principal

Secretary, HPPWD, to the Govt. of H.P., against the

award dated 19.8.2011, passed by the learned Reference

Court.

13. The above judgment of Coordinate Bench has been

relied upon by the learned Additional Advocate General,

by pointing out that the present appeal has also been

filed against the award, dated 19.8.2011, passed by the

learned Reference Court, which was being challenged, by

way of RFA No.174 of 2013, along with its connected

matters.

14. Vide judgment dated 25.4.2023, the Coordinate

Bench of this Court, has held as under:

"11. In General manager, OIL and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel

2008 (14) SCC 745, it has been held that the assessment of market value should be avoided on the exemplar sale transactions, which have taken place after the issuance of 6 notification under

Section 4 of the Act. Para16 of the judgment reads as under: "16. Much more unsafe is the recent trend to determine the market value of

acquired lands with reference to future sale transactions or acquisitions. To illustrate, if the market value of a land acquired in 1992 has to be

determined and if there are no sale transactions/ acquisitions of 1991 or 1992 (prior to the date of preliminary notification), the statistics relating to

sales/acquisitions in future, say of the years 199495 or 199596 are taken as the base price and the market value in 1992 is worked back by making deductions at the rate of 10% to 15% per annum. How far is this safe? One of the fundamental principles of valuation is that the transactions subsequent to the acquisition should be ignored for determining the market value of acquired lands, as the very acquisition and the

consequential development would accelerate the overall development of the surrounding areas resulting in a sudden or steep spurt in the prices. Let us illustrate. Let us assume there was no development activity in a particular area. The appreciation in market price in such area would

.

be slow and minimal. But if some lands in that

area are acquired for a residential/commercial/industrial layout, there will be all round development and improvement in

the infrastructure/ amenities/facilities in the next one or two years, as a result of which the surrounding lands will become more valuable. Even if there is no actual improvement in infrastructure, the potential and possibility of

improvement on account of the proposed residential/commercial/ industrial layout will result in a higher rate of escalation in prices. As a result, if the 7 annual increase in market value

was around 10% per annum before the acquisition, the annual increase of market value of

lands in the areas neighbouring the acquired land, will become much more, say 20% to 30%, or even more on account of the development/proposed development. Therefore, if the percentage to be

added with reference to previous acquisitions/sale transactions is 10% per annum, the percentage to be deducted to arrive at a

market value with reference to future acquisitions/sale transactions should not be 10% per annum, but much more. The percentage of

standard increase becomes unreliable. Courts should therefore avoid determination of market value with reference to subsequent/future

transactions. Even if it becomes inevitable, there should be greater caution in applying the prices fetched for transactions in future. Be that as it may." 12. In light of above exposition, the learned Reference Court was not right in assessing the market value of exemplar sale deed, which was executed after about eleven months from the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Noticeably, except exemplar sale deed Ext.

PW1/A, the learned Reference Court has not placed reliance on any other evidence for assessment of market value of the land. Thus, the impugned award, passed in Reference Petitions No. 53, 58, 56 and 54 of 2003 cannot be sustained. 8 13. Accordingly, the appeals are

.

allowed. The impugned awards are set aside and

the matters are remanded back to learned Reference Court to decide Reference Petitions No. 53, 58, 56 and 54 of 2003 afresh. Since initiation

of reference petitions dates back to the year 2002, it is expected from the learned Reference Court that the above noted reference petitions will be decided by such Court with sufficient expedition and preferably within three months from the date

of receipt of this judgment. Record be sent back forthwith. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of."

15. Since, the present appeal has also been filed,

against the said award, as such, the judgment dated

25.4.2023, passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court,

in RFA No.174 of 2013, titled as, 'Principal

Secretary, PWD & ors versus Mehar Chand & others',

is mutatis mutandis applicable to the present case.

16. As such, the present appeal is also allowed by

setting aside the award impugned herein, and the matter

is remanded back to the learned Reference Court to

decide the same afresh, expeditiously, preferably within

a period of three months, from the date of receipt of

judgment, along with the records. Needless to say that