Durga Ram (Deceased) Through Lrs & Anr vs Land Acquisition Collector & Anr

@JUDGEMENTTAG- JUDGEMENT

Virender Singh, J

Appellants, have preferred the present appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), against the award dated 27.03.2014, passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Reference Court), in Reference Petition No.1 of 2009 titled as ‘Durga Ram & Another Versus Land Acquisition Collector, HP, PWD, Mandi, HP & Another’.

Vide award dated 27.03.2014, while answering the reference, under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Reference Court has dismissed the reference petition, preferred by the appellants.

For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis are, hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, as were, referred to, by the learned Reference Court.

4 Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, before this Court, may be summed up, as under:-

4.1. The State of Himachal Pradesh has acquired the land for the construction of Baroha-Nakhlera-Jeyori Pattan Road in Village Geharwin, Tehsil Jhundatta, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 25.06.2004, which was given wide publicity, as per mandate of the Act. Thereafter, the provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the Act were complied with and ultimately, the award, under Section 11 of the Act, was passed, vide Award No.9 dated 30.04.2007, by the Land Acquisition Collector, HPPWD, CZ, Mandi, H.P.

4.2 Vide Award No.9 dated 30.04.2007, land, measuring 2 bigha 5 biswas, was acquired. Vide award dated 30.04.2007, Land Acquisition Collector has assessed the market value as Rs.18,947/-. Since the petitioners were not satisfied with the award, as assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector, as such, the reference was made under Section 18 of the Act, against the award. As such, a prayer has been made to Land Acquisition Collector to make the reference to the learned District Judge.

4.3 According to the reference petition, the Land Acquisition Collector has made the award on the lower side, without making fair assessment, as, the acquired land was well connected with Jhandutta Tehsil Headquarter, hospital, Government Offices, Government Senior Secondary School, water, electricity and other basic facilities.

4.4 The commercial potentiality of the acquired land has also been put forward to show that the Land Acquisition Collector has not taken into consideration all these necessary facts.

4.5 According to the petitioners, the market value of the land, at the time of issuance of the notification. under Section 4 of the Act, was not less than Rs.2,00,000/- per biswa.

4.6 Apart from this, according to the petitioners, the market value of the trees has also been assessed. In addition to this, the petitioners have also claimed the statutory benefits.

When put to notice, reference petition was contested by the respondents. However, the factual position, with regard to the acquisition of the land, has not been disputed. The factual position, with regard to the commercial potentiality of the acquired land, has been disputed, by the respondents.

5.1 It is the specific case of the respondents that no fruit/non-fruit bearing trees were there on the acquired land. Supporting the award, it has been pleaded that the Land Acquisition Collector has taken into consideration all relevant facts and assessed the adequate market value of the acquired land, prevailing at the time of issuance of the notification, under Section 4 of the Act.

From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Reference Court, vide order dated 30.06.2010:-

“1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Collector is in-adequate, if so what is the just and reasonable compensation? OPP.

Relief.”

Thereafter, parties to the lis were directed to adduce evidence.

After closure of the evidence and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Reference Court has dismissed the reference petition.

Aggrieved from the said award, the present appeal has been preferred, before this Court, on the ground that, the learned Reference Court, as well as, the Land Acquisition Collector has not considered the potential market value of the acquired land, as highlighted, in the reference petition.

Heavily relying upon the statements of PW-1 (Durga Ram) and PW-2 (Raj Kumar), it is the case of the appellants that the acquired land is proved to be of better quality, than, the land situated in Village Sair, Behna Bramna, Neerus, Bala and Behran.

Highlighting the fact that the land, in Village Behran, has been sold for a sum of Rs.13,000/- per biswa on 15.12.1992, Rs.1,25,000/- per biswa on 21.08.1993 and Rs.45,000/- on 26.05.2004 and all the sale instances have been proved on record, as Ex.PA, Ex.PC and Ex.PE. It has been contended that the learned Reference Court has not considered these documents. The learned Reference Court is stated to have wrongly relied upon the sale deed dated 28.11.2003, as Ex.RW1/A.

On the basis of above, Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate, vice, Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for the appellants, prayed that the present appeal may be allowed, by assessing the market value of the acquired land, as claimed, in the reference petition.

Per contra, Mr. H.S. Rawat, learned Additional Advocate General, representing the respondents, submitted that the learned Reference Court has rightly dismissed the reference petition, as, the adequate market value has already been assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector.

When, a reference petition is made to the Court, it has to be decided to award just compensation. While doing so, mechanical assessment of the evidence is to be avoided and the imagination should be applied, as the purpose of reference is to assess the market value of the acquired land, prevailing at the time of issuance of notification, under Section 4 of the Act. Onus is upon the petitioners to prove the market value of the acquired land, prevailing at the time of issuance of notification, under Section 4 of the Act.

The reference has been made to the learned Reference Court, on the ground that, the award has been passed without making fair assessment and award is not, according to the Act, Rules and keeping in view the importance and value of the acquired land.

After framing of the issues, petitioner No.1 (Durga Ram) stepped into the witness box, as PW-1 and deposed that his land, measuring 2 bigha 5 biswas, was acquired in the year 1962, for the construction of Baroha -Nakhlera-Jeyori Pattan Road, in Village Geharwin, Tehsil Jhundatta, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. Notification, under Section 4 of the Act, was issued in the year 2004.

16.1 According to him, the market value has not properly been assessed, as, at village Gedwi, there are Government Senior Secondary School, hospital, veterinary hospital, bank etc.

16.2 As per further deposition of this witness, the subject matter of the award is better land, than the land situated in Village Sair, Behna Bramna, Neerus, Bala and Behran. The compensation, as per the market rate, be given to them.

16.3 According to him, the connectivity for their village is, by two roads, one, which is constructed, over the acquired land and the other one is from Galia Wala link, which was constructed about 18-19 years ago. All other suggestions, which were put to the said witness, by the learned District Attorney, have been denied.

PW-2 Raj Kumar, Patwari, Patwar Circle, Gedwi also stepped into the witness box and deposed that boundaries of Village Sair, Behna Bramna, Neerus, Bala and Behran are adjoining to Village Gedwi and in Village Gedwi, there are hospital, school and bank etc.

17.1 In the cross-examination, PW-2 Raj Kumar, Patwari has admitted that in revenue estate of Village Gedwi, there are no hospital, school and bank, rather, the same are in Gedwi-Palgiri.

To rebut this evidence, RW-1 Ramesh Chand Nanda, Assistant Engineer deposed that Jhandutta is at a distance of about 7 kilometers from the acquired land and no school is nearer to the acquired land. Basic facilities are also stated to be not there. The acquired land is stated to be situated at a distance of 2 kilometers away, from Village Gedwi. According to him, no trees, as per the revenue record, are over the acquired land.

18.1 He further deposed that when the land was acquired, he was not present there. He has also tendered, the certified copy of sale deed, dated 28.11.2003 of Village Gedwi, in evidence, as Ex.RW1/A.

So far as the documentary evidence is concerned, the petitioners have tendered, the certified copies of the following sale deeds, to be treated, as exemplar sale deeds:-

i. Sale deed dated 15.12.1992 (Ex.PA)

ii. Sale deed dated 05.02.1991 (Ex.PB)

iii. Sale deed dated 21.08.1993 (Ex.PC)

iv. Sale deed dated 14.11.1995 (Ex.PD)

v. Sale deed dated 26.05.2004 (Ex.PE)

Whereas, the respondents have relied upon the sale deed dated 28.11.2003, as Ex.RW1/A.

Since, the onus is upon the petitioners to prove the market value of the acquired land, prevailing at the time of issuance of the notification, under Section 4 of the Act, as such, before considering the sale instances, as exemplar sale deeds, this Court has to assess the above documents, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a case, titled as ‘Ravinder Narain v. Union of India’ reported as ‘(2003) 4 SCC 481’. Relevant para No.9 of the said judgment is reproduced, as under:-

“9. It can be broadly stated that the element of speculation is reduced to a minimum if the underlying principles of fixation of market value with reference to comparable sales are made:

(i) when sale is within a reasonable time of the date of notification under Section 4(1);

(ii) it should be a bona fide transaction;

(iii) it should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the land acquired; and

(iv) it should possess similar advantages.”

The notification, under Section 4 of the Act, was issued on 25.06.2004 and the exemplar sale deeds, which have been relied upon, by the petitioners, are of years 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1995.

Sale deed dated 15.12.1992 (Ex.PA), 05.02.1991 (Ex.PB) and dated 21.08.1993 (Ex.PC) pertain to the land situated in Village Behran, whereas, sale deed dated 14.11.1995 (Ex.PD) and sale deed dated 26.05.2004 (Ex.PE), pertain to land situated in Village Sair and Village Behna, respectively.

None of the sale deeds is pertaining to Village Gedwi, where, the acquired land is situated.

In such a situation, the learned Reference Court has rightly relied upon the sale deed dated 28.11.2003, (Ex.RW1/A) of Village Gedwi. The said sale deed was executed on 28.11.2003 and notification, under Section 4 of the Act, was issued on 25.06.2004. As such, the said sale deed is liable to be considered, while assessing the market value of the acquired land, prevailing at the time of issuance of the notification, under Section 4 of the Act.

Since, the learned Reference Court has rightly considered the sale deed, as such, the petitioners could not probabilize the fact that the adequate compensation has not been given to them. No evidence has been led, on file, which would show that, over the acquired land, there were fruit bearing/non-fruit bearing trees.

As such, in the absence of any documentary evidence, mere pleading the facts, is not substantiated to hold that the value of the fruit bearing/non -fruit bearing trees was not given, to the petitioners.

No other point has been urged or argued, before this Court.

Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the award, passed by the learned Reference Court, does not require any interference, by this Court. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

Record be sent down.