Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd vs Shiv Dittu & Others

Sushil Kukreja, J

The instant appeal has been preferred by Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. (who was respondent before the learned Reference Court and hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”) against award, dated 01.09.2015, passed by learned Additional District Judge (II), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (Joginder Nagar Circuit Court) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Reference Court’) in LAC Petition No. 5/14/09.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/claimants (respondents herein) preferred petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) before the learned Reference Court, against common award No. 293 of 2006, dated 09.05.2006, which was passed by Land Acquisition Collector, H.P.S.E.B., Unit No. 2, Mandi, for enhancement of compensation.

The appellant-Board had issued Notification under Section 4 of the Act, dated 04.07.2003, for acquisition of the land situated in village Chalharg, Tehsil Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P., as the same was required by the government for public purpose, i.e., for construction of Uhal Hydel Project Stage-III. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in Rajpatra on 26.07.2003, in news papers Amar Ujala and Divya Himachal on 16.07.2003 and local publicity was done on 27.08.2003. After detailed inquiry, the Land Acquisition Collector assessed the compensation of the acquired land on the following rates:

Sr. No.

Classification of the land

Rate per bigha

1.

Dhani Awal

Rs.4,00,000/-

2.

Dhani Doem

Rs.3,60,000/-

3.

Kalahu Awal

Rs.3,90,000/-

4.

Kalahue Doem

Rs.3,00,000/-

5.

Bagicha Kalahu Phaldar and Bacha

Barani Chaye

Rs.4,10,000/-

6.

Bagicha Barani Faldardar

Rs.3,85,000/-

7.

Barani Awal

Rs.3,50,000/-

8.

Barani Doem

Rs.3,25,000/-

9.

Barani Some.

Rs.1,75,000/-

10.

Banjar Kable Kast.

Rs.1,25,000/-

11.

Kharyatar

Rs.1,00,000/-

12.

Gair Mumkin Bir & Nale

Rs.1,00,000/-

13.

Gair Mumkin Awadi

Rs.4,00,000/-

The petitione s/claimants, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the above award, preferred petition under Section 18 of the Act with the prayer that the matter be referred to learned Reference Court for enhancement of compensation.

The learned Reference Court, allowed the petition of the petitioners and held them entitled for enhanced compensation at the flat rate of Rs.4,25,000/- per bigha irrespective of the classification of the land. In addition to the above, the petitioners were also held entitled to solatium, additional compensation, interest etc..

I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, learned counsel/vice counsel for the respective respondents and have also gone through the records.

Learned Senior counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Reference Court had erred in awarding uniform rate for the entire acquired land by ignoring the classification and nature of the land. She further contended that the nature and classification of the land and purpose for which it was being utilized by the land owners were relevant factors required to be considered for determining the amount of compensation and the learned Reference Court had wrongly adopted compara ive sale method instead of belting system based on natu e and classification of the land. She submitted that the learned Additional District Judge had also failed to c nsider the fact that the land in question was acquired for construction of Hydel Project benefitting people of t e area, therefore some reasonable deduction should ave been made from the amount of compensation to be paid to the land owners.

Conversely, learned counsel/vice counsel representing the respective respondents supported the impugned award by contending that the learned Reference Court had rightly assessed the market value of the acquired land.

I have closely scrutinized the entire evidence on record and after close scrutiny thereof I am of the considered opinion that the learned Reference Court had not committed any error while assessing the market value of the land in question. Petitioner Shri Prem Singh appeared in the witness-box as PW-1. Though, this witness did not produce any document in the Court, but he deposed that his one bigha had been acquired by the government or Uhal Project 3rd stage and he was also claimant in the said land. Another petitioner Shri Shyam Singh appeared in the witness-box as PW-2 and deposed that adjoining to the land in question there was mohal Kh dder and Kundun and after the decision from the C urt the land owners of the above mohals were granted compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- per bigha. The respondents have examined Assistant Engineer, Shri Surjit C and, as RW-1, who tendered in evidence copy of award No. 293 of 2006, dated 09.05.2006, Ex. RW-1/A.

It is a settled law that where the entire area is similarly situated, the value of the land under acquisition is to be assessed as a single unit irrespective of its classification and nature ignoring the purpose to which it was being put prior to the acquisition, as well as to the one it is likely to be put thereafter. In Gulabi & etc. vs. State of H.P., AIR 1998 HP 9, it has been held as under:

“As a result of this discussion it is held that the market value of the land on the date of acquisition is Rs.4,000/- per biswa. In this context it is further held that the value of the land under acquisition is to be assessed irrespective of its classification and nature ignoring the purpose to which it was being put prior to the acquisition, as well as to the one it is likely to be put thereafter, Consequently, the appellants are held entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per biswa uniformally for all qualities of land and it is ordered accordingly. In taking this view, we are guided by the judgment of the on''ble Apex Court reported in Bhagwathula Samanna and others Vs. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality, and the relevant abstracts rom the said judgment are as under (paras 7, 11, 13):--

“In awarding compensati n in acquisition proceedings, the C urt has necessarily to determine the market value f the land as on the date of the relevant N ificati n. It is useful to consider the value paid for similar land at the material time under genuine transactions. The market value envisages the price which a willing purchaser may pay under bona fide transfer to a willing seller. The land value can differ depending pon the extent and nature of the land sold. A fully developed small plot in a important locality may fetch a higher value than a larger area in an undeveloped condition and situated in a remote locality. By comparing the price shown in the transactions all variables have to be taken into consideration. The transaction in regard to smaller property cannot, therefore, be taken as a real basis for fixing thecompensation for larger tracts of property. In fixing the market value of a large property on the basis of a sale transaction for smaller property, generally a deduction is given taking into consideration the expenses required for development of the larger tract to make smaller plots within that area in order to compare with the small plots dealt with under the sale transaction.

The principle of deduction in the land value covered by the comparable sale is thus adopted in order to arrive at the market value of the acquired land. In applying the principle it is necessary to consider all relevant facts. It is not the extent of the area covered under the acquisition, the only relevant factor. Even in the vast area there may be land which is fully developed having all amenities and situated in an advantageous position. If smaller area within the large tract is already developed and suitable for building purposes and have in its vicinity roads, drainage, electricity, communications etc., then the principle of deduction simply for

7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:35172 ) the reason that it is part of the large tract acquired, may not be justified.

The proposition that large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold is not absolute proposition and in given circumstances it would be permissible to take into account the price fetched by the small plots of land. If the larger tract of land because of advantageous position is capable of being used for the purpose for which the smaller plots are used and is also situated in a developed area with little or no requirement of further development, the principle of deduction of the value for purpose of comparison is not warranted.

In the instant case it has been satisfactorily shown on the evidence n rec rd that the land has facilities of road and ther amenities and is adjacent to a devel ped c l ny and in such circumstances it is possible to utilize the entire area in ques ion as house sites. In respect of the land acqui ed for he road, the same advantages are available and it did not require any further development. The efore, no deduction could be made on gro nd, that large tract of land is required.”

In Land Acquisition Officer vs. L Kamalamma (1998) 2 S 385, H.P. Housing Board vs. Ram Lal & others 2003(3) Sim.L.C. 64, Executive Engineer & Anr. Vs. Dilla Ram Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 1007) it was held that when the entire land acquired belongs to one block, classification of the same into different categories is not reasonable. In case acquired land is to be used/developed as a single unit for a purpose having no relevancy with quality of land, the classification of land completely loses its significance.

Therefore, in view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements of law, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the learned Reference Court has erred in awarding uniform rate for the entire land by ignoring the classification and nature of the land deserves to be rejected, as in the instant case also the land has been acquired as the single unit for the public purpose, i.e., for construction of Uhal Hydel Project-III.

Learned Senior counsel f r the appellant next contended that the learned Reference Court had also failed to consider the fact that the land in question was acquired for construction of Hydel Project benefitting people of the area, therefore s me reas nable deduction should have been made from the amount of compensation to be paid to the land owners. However, this contention of the learned Senior Counsel is devoid of any force as it is a settled law that the deduction will not be permissible where the purpose of acquisition of the land is for the construction of road, rail track or any other purpose relatable to the public at large, without any component of profit or loss. In The Land Acquisition Collector vs. Bangalu @ Daulat Ram, 2025 (1) Shim. LC 146, it has been held that the deduction will not be permissible where the purpose of acquisition of land is for the construction of road, rail track or any other purpose relatable to the public at large, without any component of profit or loss. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is as under:

“11. The contention of the learned Deputy Advocate General that standard deduction was required to be made from the flat rate of Rs.8,50,000/- per bigha, is devoid of any merits. This Court in number of judgments has consistently taken a view that the deduction will not be permissible where the purpose of acquisition of land is for the c nstructi n f road, rail track or any other purp se relatable to the public at large, with ut any c mponent of profit or loss.”

In the instant case also, since the land has been acquired for a p blic p rpose, i.e., for construction of Uhal Hydel Project Stage-III, relatable to the public at large, therefore, no deducti n will be permissible.

It is also settled that the market value determined by an award made under the Act for an earlier acquired land, can also form the basis to determine the market value of the subsequently acquired land. In M/s Printers House Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mst. Saiyadan (deceased) by L.Rs, & others, AIR 1994 SC 1160, it has been held as under:

“15. As the price fetched under a genuine sale- deed could form the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land, by either the Land Acquisition Officer or the Court could also form the basis for determining the market value of subsequently acquired land.”

In the instant case, the land of the other land owners was acquired for the same project and their references were decided by the learned District Judge on 31.10.2011. The learned Reference Court, had placed reliance upon the award, Ex. RW-1/A, while determining the market value of the land in the instant case. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment of the on’ble Supreme Court, award, Ex. RW-1/A, passed by learned District Judge, Mandi, could form basis for determining the market value of the subsequently acquired land, herefore, no fault can be found in the findings of the learned Reference Court to that extent.

In RFA No. 17 of 2012, alongwith connected matters, titled as Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, Shimla vs. Jonda Ram (deceased) through LRs Sh. Nagender Kumar & others, decided on 18.05.2017, the land in the adjoining village, i.e., village Khuddar was acquired for the same purpose, i.e., for construction of Uhal Hydel Project Stage-III, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had upheld the award passed by the learned Reference Court, wherein the value of the acquired land was assessed at the rate of Rs.4,25,000/- per bigha, irrespective of nature and classification of the land in question.

In the instant case also, the land was situated in adjoining village Chalharg and the same was acquired for the same purpose, i.e., for construction of Uhal Hydel Project Stage-III and the learned Reference court had rightly assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs.4,25,000/- per bigha irrespective of nature and classification of the land alongwith all the statutory benefits.

Hence, in view of what has been discussed hereinabove and also considering the above stated settled principles of law, no inte fe ence is required in the impugned award, dated 01.09.2015, passed by learned Additional District Judge (II) Mandi, H.P. (Joginder Nagar Circuit Court).

The instant appeal, being devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of.