L.A.C. and Another vs Sh. Prem Chand and Another

Sanjay Karol, J.—These appeals arise out of common impugned award hence are being considered and decided by a common judgment. In the impugned award the Addl. District Judge, Mandi, H.P. has enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants by determining the market value of the acquired land to be Rs. 1,60,000/- per bigha. Compensation with regard to the super structure has also been enhanced in each of the reference petitions filed by various claimants.

The Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board is essentially aggrieved of the enhancement of the compensation with respect to the enhanced market value of the acquired land.

For the public purpose namely construction of Largi Hydel Project, land situate in village Kamradha, Sub Tehsil Aut, Distt. Mandi, H.P. was acquired by the State. Notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), issued on 22.12.1987 was published in the H.P. Rajpatra on 7.5.1988. Award No. 55 u/s 11 of the Act was passed by the Collector on 24.8.1990. Aggrieved of the same various land owners, including the claimants herein filed land reference petitions seeking enhancement of the compensation on various grounds. The instant land reference petitions were consolidated by the Addl. District Judge and land reference Petition No. 53 of 1993 was taken to be as the lead case and evidence led in the said case was taken for the purposes of adjudicating the reference petitions.

The chart showing the names of the claimants, number of the land reference petition and the appeals are as under:

Name(s) of claimant. Reference case No. RFA No. Prem Chand and Anr. Ref. Case No. 53 of 1993 RFA No. 248/01. Trilok Chand Ref. Case No. 54 of 1993 RFA No. 249/01 Hemant Kumar Ref. Case No. 55 of 1993 RFA No. 250/01

RFA No. 201/01

Thakri Devi and Ors. Ref. Case No. 56 of 1993 RFA No. 251/01 Kamal Kapoor Ref. Case No. 57 of 1993 RFA No. 252/01 Ashish Kumar and Ors. Ref. Case No. 58 of 1993 RFA No. 253/01

The Court below framed the following issues for determination:

Whether the compensation awarded to the petitioners for the acquired property was not adequate, as alleged? OPP

If issue No. 1 is proved, in affirmative, to what amount, the petitioners are entitled? OPP

Whether adequate compensation for trees has not been properly assessed? OPP

Whether the petitioners are entitled for loss of earning and goodwill, if so to what extent? OPP

Relief.

Opportunity to lead evidence was afforded to the parties.

The Court below enhanced the market value of the acquired land by taking into account the exemplar sale deeds placed on record by the claimants. It also enhanced compensation with respect to the super structure exiting on the acquired land.

Sh. Baldev Singh, learned Counsel for the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board has argued that determination of the market value for the acquired land has been arrived at without proper appreciation of the material on record. Hence the impugned award to the aforesaid extent needs to be interfered with.

Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has supported the impugned award for the reasons set out therein. The extent of the land acquired and the claimants entitlement to the compensation is not in dispute. The extent of the acquired land is as under:

Bagicha Barani Faldar 2-07-11 Bighas

Barani Awal 2-16-19 -do-

Banjar Kadim 1-03-09 -do-

Khadetar 9-04-04 -do-

Ger Mumkin (Evaluated 1-03-14 -do- on the basis of rate approved for Banjar Kadim) 16-15-17 bighas.

The market value was determined by the Collector by awarding different rates for different categories of land as under:

Barani Awal Rs. 67,500/- per bigha

Bagicha Barani Faldar Rs. 1,22,960/- per bigha

Banjar Kadim Rs. 18,434/- per bigha

Khadetar Rs. 15,370/- per bigha.

Having perused the record I am of the considered view that the award has been passed by the Court below after proper appreciation of complete material on record. The sale transactions Ext. PW-7/A, Ext.PW9/ A, Ext.PW-10/A and Ext.PW-11/A have been made basis for determining the market value.

The sale deeds placed on record by the State have rightly not been made basis for determining the market value as they pertain to a place which is far off from the acquired land. In fact the exemplar sale land sold in terms of sale deed Ext.RW-1/A is located at a distance of one and a half kilometer from the road.

That the acquired land is situated on the National Highway No. 21 and has great potential of being put to commercial use stands proved by the claimants witnesses and more particularly Sh. Bhagat Ram (PW-5), Sh. Dina Nath (PW-6), Sh. Hemant Kumar (PW-7), Sh. Shambhu Ram (PW-8) and Sh. Shyam Lal (PW-9). In fact PW-9 had purchased the land and put it to commercial use by setting up a poultry farm, a commercial establishment. The unit established by him had been running on profitable basis. Hence the commercial use stands established on record.

It also stands established on record that village Aut is adjoining to village Khamradha where the instant acquired land is situate. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that Aut is a tourist destination having large commercial establishments. It is a focal point which leads to various places in district Kullu and Mandi.

Claimants have placed on record sale deeds to prove that the market value of the acquired land is in fact much more than what stands awarded by the Collector. 16. The sale deed Ext.PW-7/A pertains to sale of two biswas of land made on 21.10.1987 for sum of Rs. 16,000/-. Similarly in terms of sale deeds Ext. PW-9/A and Ext. PW-11/A one biswa of land was sold for Rs. 9000/- on 26.5.1986. In terms of sale deed Ext. PW-10/A, 5 biswas and 12 biswansi land was sold on 5.1.1987 for a sum of Rs. 45,000/-. All these sale transactions pertain to Mauja Khamradha and the average sale price comes to more than Rs. 8000/- per biswa. The claimants have also placed on record sale deed Ext. PJ dated 18.3.1983 whereby one biswa of land was sold for a sum of Rs. 15,000/-. However this sale pertains to Mohal Aut. It has come on record that Mohal Khamradha is adjoining to Mohal Aut. The aforesaid sale transactions stand duly proved by Sh. Hemant Kumar (PW-7), Sh. Shyam Lal (PW-9), Sh. Kamal Kapoor (PW-10) and Sh. Geeta Nand (PW-11). The genuineness of the sale transactions cannot be disputed at all. In fact Sh. Shyam Lal had purchased the same for setting up his commercial establishment. The similarity of the acquired land with that of the exemplar sale deeds Ext. PW-7/A, Ext.PW9/ A, Ext.PW-11/A and Ext.PW-10/A with respect to its size, nature, potential, quality stands proved by PW-7, PW-9, PW-10 and PW-11. It is not the case of the State that the sale prices were inflated keeping in view the intended acquisition.

Thus the Court below rightly took into account the exemplar sale deeds for determining the market value of the acquired land. The Court below has determined the market value of the acquired land to be Rs. 8000/- per biswa (Rs. 1,60,000/- per bigha). The exemplar sale lands no doubt pertain to small parcel of land but however the share holding of each claimant is also small. No doubt the total acquired land covered by a single notification is more than 16 bighas but as per the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and Others Vs. Executive Engineer, Gujarat and Another, the share holding of each claimant has to be considered for determining the market value of the acquired land. It is settled law that land owners are entitled to compensation which is just, fair and reasonable.

Hence I find no infirmity in the impugned award and the appeals are dismissed.

Claimant Sh. Hemant Kumar has filed appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Court below on the ground that compensation awarded is inadequate. With respect to the determination of the market value there is no error in the impugned award. With respect to the cost of structure I am of the considered view that the Court below has rightly determined the market value already determined. The Court below has given an increase of 40% on the amount awarded for building, structure and shed existing on the acquired land. Hence in the absence of any clear, cogent and convincing material to the contrary there is no justification for further enhancement of the compensation.

Appeals are accordingly dismissed.