Govardhan, Kusum Sharma and Prem Lata Sharma vs Collector, Land Acquisition and Another <BR> Kuldeep Mahant @ Kuldeep and Others Vs Collector, Land Acquisition and Others

V.K. Ahuja, J.—This judgment shall dispose of all the aforesaid regular first appeals filed by the appellants u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (here-in-after referred to as ''the Act'') against the common award passed by the learned District Judge, Kullu, dated 10.4.2001, vide which he dismissed the petitions filed by the present appellants for the enhancement of the compensation given by the Land Acquisition Collector.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the land of the appellants and others was acquired for construction of National Highway-21, Kullu Bye Pass, situated in Phati Kharaha, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. The land of the petitioners measuring 14-6-7 bighas was acquired. A notification u/s 4 of the Act was issued which was duly published on 25.8.1991. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Collector entered into reference and granted compensation to the petitioners at the rate of Rs. 3.00 lac per bigha, irrespective of the quality of the land alongwith other statutory charges.

Feeling aggrieved, reference petitions u/s 18 of the Act were filed before the court of the learned District Judge. The parties led their evidence and the learned District Judge vide his impugned order held that the petitioners are not entitled to any enhancement and accordingly dismissed the reference petitions. The present appeals have been filed against the said award of the learned District Judge declining to enhance compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Advocate General for the respondents and have gone through the record of the case.

The facts of the case are very clear that the compensation in question was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector at the rate of Rs. 3.00 lac per bigha. It has come in evidence that three sale transactions were relied upon by the appellants before the court of the learned District Judge. The second and third transactions were not considered by the learned trial Court for the reason that Ext.PW-1/E was dated 26.7.1992 i.e. after the issuance of the Notification in the month of August, 1991 and, therefore, it was rightly held to be not relevant by the learned trial Court. The second transaction was also vide which the sale deed Ext.PW-1/D had been executed on 18.12.1991 after the issuance of the notification but the petitioners led evidence to show that there was an agreement to sell Ext.PW-1/C prior to the issuance of the notification, which was dated 30.12.1989. The learned trial Court has given reasons vide which it has not believed the transaction in question being bona fide and, therefore, it was also rightly ignored by the learned trial Court.

The only transaction which remains worth consideration is the sale deed Ext.PW-1/A, dated 18.5.1984, vide which one biswa of land was sold for Rs. 20,000/-. The said transaction was prior to the issuance of the notification, or say 7 years prior to the issuance of the notification and, therefore, was rightly considered by the learned trial Court. The transaction in question was for a small piece of land and 40% deduction is required to be made accordingly in regard to the transactions of small pieces of land which was also made by the learned trial Court. Keeping in view the sale transaction, the learned trial Court concluded that since one biswa of land was sold for Rs. 20,000/- and the market value, after deduction, comes to Rs. 12,000/- per biswa or say Rs. 2,40,000/- per bgiha. The deduction was rightly made by the learned trial Court. However, there is a judgment of the Apex Court reported in The General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Another, In that case, their Lordships had considered the question as to how the increase should be given in case the sale transaction was executed prior to the date of the issuance of notification. It has been laid down that increase in market value in urban/semi urban areas should be about 10-15% per annum whereas the corresponding increase in rural area should, at the best, be only around half i.e. 7.5% per annum. In the present case, the land acquired in question was not nearing the town though the Collector had been kind enough to observe that it is located near Kullu Town, but he clearly observed that it was across the river Beas and was at a distance of 100-200 yards from Akhara Bazar of Kullu where there is main shopping bazaar. The property in question cannot be said to be in urban area but it can be said to be situated in a semi urban area. Keeping in view the fact that the transaction was entered into in the year 1984 and the land was acquired in the year 1991, an annual increase of 5% at the most to the extent of 35% could have been given by the Court. However, the Collector himself had granted the increase more than that since the rate per bigha on the basis of the sale deed was considered at Rs. 2,40,000/-, but he gave the compensation at Rs. 3.00 lac per bigha, which cannot be reduced by the Court.

Accordingly, the learned trial Court found no infirmity in the award passed by the Collector and the compensation awarded at the rate of Rs. 3.00 lac can be said to be reasonable and calls for no interference by this Court.

In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeals filed by the appellants, who are held entitled to the compensation as awarded by the Collector alongwith other statutory charges. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of the judgment be placed on the record of the other connection appeals.