Land Acquisition Collector vs Bhadru Ram

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.—This judgment shall dispose of the present appeal and also the connected one, RFA No. 198 of 2007 arising out of the same award, dated 7.3.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, camp at Karsog in Land Reference Nos. 120 of 2002 and 126 of 2001, as common questions of law and facts are involved for consideration and adjudication.

Appellant-State/Respondent in the lower court has acquired the land belonging to the respondents herein, petitioners-claimants in the court below, for construction of Kotlu-Katanda Road in Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi. In this appeal, the respondents-petitioners are Bhadru Ram, Smt. Kul Dassi, Pyare Lal and Khem Raj. Their land entered in khasra Nos. 895/657/1, 897/657/1, 650/1, 652/1, 896/657/1, 28/1, 156/2, 27, 157 and 592, measuring 1-15-11 bighas has been acquired, whereas that of the respondents-petitioners, namely Sher Singh, Bhim Singh, Padam Dassi, Kanshi Ram, Smt. Fulo and Smt. Bimla in connected appeal, entered in khasra Nos. 294/1, measuring 0-1-5 bigha, 294/2 measuring 0-1-3 bigha and 375 measuring 0-11-9 bigha, total measuring 0-13-17 bigha. The category of the acquired land of respondents-petitioners Bhadru Ram etc. in this appeal is ''Banjar Kable Kasht and Bakhal Abbal'', whereas the category of the acquired land belonging to the respondents-petitioners in the connected appeal ''Bagicha Barani Faldar and Gair Mumkin Sadak''. The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'' was issued by the appellant-State on 22.2.1995. Land Acquisition Collector, HPPWD, Mandi-appellant No. 1 on completion of the codal formalities announced award No. 32 on 31.3.1997 qua the acquired land belonging to the respondents-petitioners in these appeals and that of other right holders. He has made Ex.PW3/B, 5 years average market price of the land in the area the basis for assessment of the compensation and awarded the compensation to the respondents-petitioners and also other right holders at the flat rate of Rs. 4500/- per bigha. The total compensation so assessed by the collector and payable to the respondents-petitioners Bhadru etc. in this appeal is Rs. 14,882/-, whereas to the respondents-petitioners in the connected appeal Rs. 6,696/-. On the awarded amount, the Collector also allowed 30% compulsory acquisition charges, additional compensation payable under Section 23(1A) @ 12% w.e.f. 17.6.1995 to 31.3.1997 and interest payable under Section 34 of the Act w.e.f. 1.4.1982 (the date of taking possession of the acquired land) to 31.3.1997.

The respondents-petitioners aggrieved by the award preferred reference under Section 18 of the Act, which the appellant No. 1-Collector forwarded to District Judge, Mandi for adjudication.

Learned Additional District Judge, Mandi after holding trial has re-determined the market value of different categories of the acquired land as under:

The award so passed by learned Additional District Judge is under challenge in these appeal on the grounds, inter alia, that award of interest from the date of taking over possession of the acquired land is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court. It has been submitted that the interest payable under Section 23(1A) of the Act on the awarded amount can be awarded from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act, whereas, the interest under Section 34 of the Act from the date of passing the award. Learned Additional District Judge allegedly committed an error while allowing the interest under Section 23(1A) w.e.f. 1.7.1982 instead of 22.2.1995 and not rectified the interest under Section 34 allegedly awarded wrongly by the Land Acquisition Collector w.e.f. 31.3.1997. The court below allegedly overlooked the determination of the compensation at the flat rate of Rs. 4500/- per bigha on the basis of 5 years average price of the land determined by the Collector and erroneously re-determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 26,959.90 and Rs. 1,470.54 taking into consideration the classification of the land and the one year average price. The impugned award, therefore, has been sought to be set aside.

It is seen from the record that land measuring 1-15-11 bighas of the respondents-petitioners in this appeal has been acquired. The classification thereof is Banjar Kable Kasht and Bakhal Abbal. The Collector has awarded the compensation to them at the flat rate of Rs. 4500/- per bigha, which as per the calculations made in the voucher available in the trial court record comes to Rs. 14,882/-. As per the award under challenge, the market value of the category of land ''Banjar Kable Kasht'' has only been assessed at Rs. 2,205.81 per bigha, whereas that of Bakhal Abbal at Rs. 7,352.70. Taking into consideration the area, i.e. 1-15-11 bighas, comprising both categories of acquired land, the compensation payable will be paltry one.

Similarly, in the connected appeal, the area of the acquired land is 0-13-17 bigha, i.e. Bagicha Barani Faldar and Gair Mumkin Sadak. The market value of the land Bagicha Barani Faldar has been assessed by learned Additional District Judge as Rs. 26,959.90. Here also, the area of the acquired land is meagre one and the compensation payable to the respondents-petitioners is again paltry.

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has dismissed RFA No. 88 of 2005 titled "LAC and another Vs. Bhadru Ram" vide order dated 30.3.2005 keeping in view a very petty amount involved in that case also. Therefore, these appeals can also be dismissed on this score alone.

Anyhow, even if the merit is seen, learned Additional District Judge has appreciated the oral as well as the documentary evidence in its right perspective and has committed no irregularity and illegality in placing reliance on the certificate of one year average market price of the land in proximity to the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act.

In view of above discussion, there is no merit in these appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed. No order so as to costs.