AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dev Darshan Sud, J.—All these appeals are being disposed of as they arise out of the common judgment of the learned reference court. The cases were consolidated together for trial by the order of learned trial Court on 28.9.2005. Common evidence was recorded in all the petitions.
The undisputed facts of the case are that an award was made by the Collector, Solan on 1.6.2000 with respect to the land of the claimants-respondents herein which was acquired through Notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') which was issued on 9.9.1996 published in the H.P. Rajpatra on 28th September, 1996 and two news paper i.e. ''Dainik Vir Partap'' and ''Weekly Giriraj'' on 2.10.1996 respectively. Subsequent notifications under Sections 6 and 7 of the ''Act'' were issued on 24.2.1997 and published in the ''Jan Satta'' and ''The Tribune'' on 12th March, 1997. By an award dated 1.6.2000, the State acquired 3-90-24 hectares of land for the construction of treatment plant for sewerage in Solan town. The purpose of acquisition of land was for a public purpose.
The Land Acquisition Collector, after holding an inquiry awarded compensation to the petitioners at various rates ranging from Rs. 13/- per sq. metres to Rs. 247/- per sq. metres depending upon the agricultural classification of the land.
The petitioners, feeling aggrieved by the award, they filed Land Reference petitions u/s 18 of the ''Act'', claiming enhancement of compensation.
Evidence was recorded in Land Reference Petition No. 16-S/4 of 2005 titled Sh. Narain Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector and Ors. PW-1 Sh. Narain Singh who stated that the land acquired by the State is in the municipal limits of Municipal Council, Solan surrounded by thickly populated residential colonies of Surya Vihar, Pawan Vihar and Scientist Colony. There is a Government Degree College and boys Hostel adjacent to the acquired land, the Solan-Rajgarh road also passes at the top of the acquired land and is connected with the National Highway No. 22. The District Collector office is 1 k.m. away from the acquired land. The District and Zonal Hospitals, Solan, Police Station and the Tehsil offices are near to the acquired land. The petitioners, in addition to proving sale deeds, stated in his evidence that the Fast Track Court, Solan in Case No. 62-FT/4 of 2004/2003 titled Subhash Chand and Ors. v. L.A.C. had awarded a sum of Rs. 812/- per sq. metre. The evidence of the respondents consisted of the affidavit of Er. Prabhat Singh Verma, who stated that the value of the land had been correctly assessed by the Collector and that the acquired land was 2.5. k.m. away from Solan-Rajgarh road and 1 k.m. away from the scientist colony. In cross-examination, he admits that there is a boy''s hostel adjacent to the acquired land but it is at a distance of 3-4 k.m. away from the colony. Ext. P-1 is the award made by the Fast Track Court in Case No. 69-FT/4 of 2004/2003 awarding a sum of Rs. 812/- per sq. metres. The other evidence in the nature of sale deeds have been produced on record consisting of Ext.P-2 to Ext.P-9 for the period 24.6.1994 to 24.6.2003. The respondents have also placed on record sale deeds Ext.R-3 to R-5 dated 29.11.1997, 22.3.1999 and 15.12.2001 whereas the other sale deeds are Ext. R-1 dated 8.6.1996 and Ext. R-2 pertaining to the year 1997.
The learned court placed reliance on the award Ext.P-1 and awarded a sum of Rs. 812/- per sq. metres. It also took into consideration sale deed Ext.P-5 executed on 4.6.1996, wherein the market value of the land is Rs. 828/-per sq. metres. Considering the evidence of the respondents of Ext.R-1 and Ext. R-5, the average value of the land works out to Rs. 563/- per sq. metres. The learned Court then relies upon the evidence of the petitioners to the effect that due to the construction of the treatment plant adjoining to the acquired land, it would be unfit for cultivation etc. The learned court held that the purpose for which the land is required to be used determinative the value of land and not the agricultural classification and, therefore, awarded Rs. 812/- per sq. metres as just compensation of the land. The State is now in appeal.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
The primary challenge of the State is that the value of the land has been assessed at a very high rate. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that the average value of the acquired land could not be considered as the basis for award of the money. It is also urged that the cost of acquisition is very high and that a deduction of at least 60% of the market value should have been allowed. Another prayer has been made that the land may be allowed to be returned to the owners.
Once the award has been made and the reference confirming the value of the land, it is not open to the State to withdraw from the acquisition proceedings on the ground that the value of the land is extremely high. The learned Additional Advocate General has taken me extensively through the evidence and in particular to the sale deeds which have been produced on record by the State to prove the value of the land. The notification u/s 4 of the ''Act'' was issued on 9.9.1996. It is, therefore, proximity in point of time to this date which has to be taken. Out of these, only one sale deed i.e. Ext. R-1 produced by the respondents is dated 7.8.1996 whereas the others are subsequent to this notification, namely, 29.11.1997, 22.3.1999 and 15.11.2001. At the same time, the petitioners have produced sale deeds, namely, Ext.P-2 to Ext. P-5. The learned court has only taken two sale deeds into consideration. Ext.P-5 produced by the claimants and Ext. R-1 produced by the respondents. These sale deeds have to be considered in terms of the proximity in time to the notification issued by the State. The learned court also places reliance on the award Ext.P-1.
Before considering the entirety of the evidence, one factor requires consideration and that is the evidence of PW-1 Sh. Narain Singh has remained un-rebutted on the record of the case when he states regarding the advantages possessed by the land which was situated near all the amenities and facilities available in an ordinary town, namely, nearest to the hospital, the Tehsil, Govt. offices, Police Station, Collector''s office, connectivity with the Highway, degree college and its hostel and surrounded by the residential colonies.
I may also notice that a practice has now developed of merely pushing in sale deeds as exhibits taking advantages of the fact that the vendor and vendee are not required to be produced, a case is tried to be made out as if the land subject matter of the sale deeds is in proximity to the acquired land and possesses of the same advantages without proving similarity. Except for producing sale deeds no other evidence has been produced by the respondents. In this state of affairs, it is natural that the reference court would not only have to turn to approximation for reaching to the conclusion of the price but was absolutely correct in relying upon the award Ext.P-1 which was made by the learned Fast Track Court. When that value is accepted it is very near the rate of approximation arrived at by the court below and cannot make it unrealistic or unacceptable. A flat rate has been awarded by the reference court as the purpose for the acquisition has been used as the basis and not the use to which the land was put to before its acquisition.
There is no dispute to the fact that even post Section 4 notification sale deeds can be taken to be the basis for an award of compensation. However, in that case, again the nature and advantages possessed by the land have to be established on the record of the case. I find no such evidence by either on behalf of the petitioners or the respondents. The learned reference Court was correct in not accepting Ext.R-2 to R-5 which is the post Section 4 sale deeds between 1977 and 2001, I find no merit in this submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that the value of the land is inflated. On the second aspect of the case, I have already held that so far as the acquisition is concerned, it is not permissible at this stage to withdraw from the acquisition.
No other point has been urged before me.
There is, thus, no merit in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.