Ishwari Nand and Another and Durga Nand vs State of H.P. and Others

V.K. Ahuja, J.—This judgment will dispose of both these Regular First Appeals which have been filed by the appellants u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the common award of the learned District Judge, Shimla dated 1.9.1999 in reference petition No. S/4 of 1997.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that vide notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", dated 10.2.1995, the State Government acquired the land measuring 0-7 biswas forming part of Khasra Nos. 24 and 25 situated in Chak Domehar, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla. The land was acquired for public purpose, namely, ''construction of Kotkhai-Domehar link road''. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated by the Land Acquisition Collector who finally assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 5618/- per bigha and paid the compensation accordingly.

The reference petitioners in both the petitions feeling aggrieved by the quantum of compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector, filed reference petitions before the Court. It was alleged by them that the Land Acquisition Collector has taken into account the market value of village Badraina though village Domehar where the acquired land is situated is contiguous to village Gehar and hence the value of the land prevailing in village Gehar at the relevant time should have been taken into account.

The learned trial Court after recording evidence of the parties enhanced the compensation to Rs. 16,854/- per bigha as against Rs. 5,618/- granted by the Land Acquisition Collector. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed by the present appeals.

The submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants were that the Land Acquisition Collector had considered the market value of land of Village Badraina though village Domehar was contiguous to Village Gehar and, therefore, the rates prevalent in Village Gehar should have been considered in preference to the market value of land of Village Badraina. It was also submitted that as per the sale transactions proved in evidence the value of land was more and accordingly the said value was not considered by the learned trial Court, and, therefore, it needs to be enhanced.

On the other hand, the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that the Sale Deeds proved in evidence by the petitioners were for small piece of land, which cannot made be the basis for determining the market value on the date of issuance of notification. It was submitted that in case deductions to the extent of 30% were made from the price as paid in those two Sale Deeds, the value of the land could not have been assessed more than 5,000/- per bigha but a reasonable amount of compensation has been paid to the petitioner by the learned trial Court which calls for no interference by this Court.

The first sale deed proved before the learned trial Court was Ex.PB which shows that the land measuring 0-2 Biswa was sold for a sum of Rs. 60,000/-. The date of sale deed is 2.7.1992 i.e. about 2-1/2 years prior to the issuance of the date of notification in the present case. The second sale deed proved in evidence was Ex.PC which shows that one biswa of land was sold for a sum of Rs. 19,000/-. The Sale Deed is dated 11.10.1993 i.e. about 1-1/2 years prior to the issuance of notification. Both the sale transactions were relevant and were rightly considered by the learned trial Court since these were the only transactions proved before it.

Coming to the sale deed for a sum of Rs. 60,000/- , the value per biswa comes to Rs. 30,000/-. However, the sale effected was for a small piece of land and according to law, in case the sale transaction is for a small piece of land, the reasonable deduction has to be made in the price paid for a small piece of land which cannot be the price that should be determined for the land. In case deduction is made to the extent of 30% to 40%, normally the value per bigha will come to Rs. 20,000/- or less than that.

In regard to the second transaction it was only for one biswa of land and the learned trial Court has rightly held that the vendor in that case had already purchased three biswas of land for a consideration and since he had encroached upon a portion of land which was purchased by him at a penal price to complete his construction. It was rightly observed by the learned trial Court that intentionally the copies of the sale deed vide which the vendor had purchased three biswas of land earlier was not placed on record and this cannot be termed as the price for the land which a willing purchaser would pay.

Apart from the above, the learned trial Court has also referred to the fact that village Domehar where the land was acquired is far away from village Ghair, and as such, the value of land in this village cannot be equal to the value of land situated in Village Ghair. It was also observed that village Badraina where the sale deeds in question were executed was behind village Gohar and thus was far away from the road that runs between Kotkhai and Ghair. Thus, it was rightly observed by the learned trial Court that the value of the land situated in Village Domehar is higher than the value of the land situated in village Badraina. Some approximation has to be made and accordingly the learned trial Court assumed that the value of the land in village Domehar might be thrice the value of the land situated in Village Badraina and taking the value of the land of village Badraina as Rs. 5618/- per bigha, the compensation was enhanced to three times i.e. Rs. 16,854/- per bigha. The reasoning has been given by the learned trial Court in enhancing the value by three times and it is clear that the learned trial Court had been considerate and had granted a reasonable compensation for the land which, by no stretch of imagination can be said to less, calling for further enhancement.

Coming to the appeal filed by the other appellant/proforma respondent Durga Nand, he claimed exclusive share to the acquired land. The learned trial Court has considered this question and had observed that all the co-sharers are recorded in possession of the acquired land and as such, held that all the co-sharers whose names find mention in the Jamabandi, are entitled to share the compensation money in the same proportion in which they are entered in the said Jamabandi. In view of the reasoning given by the learned trial Court, the appellant/proforma respondent Durga Nand is not entitled to exclusive share and these findings do not call for any interference by this Court.

In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeals filed by the appellants for enhancement of the compensation granted by the learned trial Court, and the findings recorded by the learned trial Court do not call for any interference by this Court and, as such, both the appeals are liable to be dismissed and are dismissed accordingly. The parties are left to bear their own costs.