Land Acquisition Collector (Central Zone) HP. PWD, I&PH And Another vs Narotam Singh Deceased Through His Lrs

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

This appeal has been filed against the award passed by learned District Judge (hereinafter referred to as the Reference Court). Land Reference

Petition No.3/4 of 2014, titled as Narotam Singh & others vs. The Land Acquisition Collector (Central Zone) HP. PWD, I&PH & another was

decided by the Reference Court alongwith a bunch of Land Reference Petitions, wherein Land Reference Petition No.10/4 of 2014, titled as Swaroop

& others vs. The Land Acquisition Collector (Central Zone) HP. PWD, I&PH & another, was a lead case and the evidence was led in the said case.

Appeal preferred by the appellants-State, against the award passed in RFA No. 114 of 2016, titled as Land Acquisition Collector and another vs.

Swaroop and others, alongwith connected appeals RFA Nos.115 to 122 of 2016, has been dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 19.09.2018.

In present case also State of H.P. has acquired the land of respondents/land owners/claimants alongwith others, including land involved in RFA No.

114 of 2016, for the purpose of construction of Bamta-Ali Khad-ChandpurKandraur road in village Kandraur, Pargana and Tehsil Sadar, District

Bilaspur after undertaking the process under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), by passing a common award i.e.

award No. 2, dated 28.5.2010 under Section 11 of the Act wherein the Collector had awarded following market value of acquired land according to

classification of land:-

Kohali Dom @ Rs. 9.81,094/-per Bigha

Andarli Abbal @ Rs. 9.81,094/- -do-

Andarli Dom @ Rs. 8,81,563/- -do-

Baharli Abbal @ Rs. 5,68,750/- -do-

Baharli Dom @ Rs. 3,55,469/- -do-

Banjar & Khadyater@ Rs. 1,27,969/- -do-

Section 25 of the Act provides that the Court cannot award the compensation lesser than the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition

Collector under Section 11 of the Act.

It is well settled that at the time of determining market value of land for acquisition, the purpose for which the land is acquired is relevant and not

nature and classification of land and where nature and classification of the land has no relevance for purpose of acquisition, the market value of the

land is to be determined as a single unit irrespective of nature and classification of the land. In such a case, uniform rate to all kinds of land under

acquisition as a single unit irrespective or their nature and classification is to be awarded. (See H.P. Housing Board vs. Ram Lal 2003(3) Shim.LC

(64), Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh (2005)12 SCC 56,4 Gulabi vs. State of H.P., 1998(1) Shim.LC 41; Executive Engineer and another vs.

Dilla Ram, Latest HLJ (2008)2 HP 1007 and HPSEB Ltd. vs. Amar Singh and connected matter, 2017(4) Him.LR 2467).

Further, it is also settled that when the purpose of acquisition is common and no developmental activity is required to be carried out, compensation is

to be awarded at uniform rate. (See: Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by LRs vs. State of Gujarat (2005)4 SCC 78,9 Himmat Singh and others vs.

State of Madhya Pradesh and another (2013)16 SCC 392, and Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Dead) by Legal Representatives and others vs. State of

Karnataka and another (2015)10 SCC 469).

Like RFA No. 114 of 2016, in present case also, it is undisputed that highest rate awarded by the Collector was Rs. 9,81,094/- per bigha. The

appellant/State has itself placed on record the award passed by the Collector is Ext.RW2/A indicating highest rate awarded by the Land Acquisition

Collector at the rate of Rs.9,81,094/- per bigha.

In the lead case, land owners/claimants have examined six witnesses and have also relied upon sale deeds Ext.PW4/A, Ext.PW5/B, Ext.PW5/C

and award Ext.PW5/D, whereas, the appellant/State has examined two witnesses and has relied upon the impugned award passed by the Collector

placed on record as Ext.RW2/A and standing order No. 28 Ext.RW2/B along with market value of land Ext.RW2/C.

Learned District Judge has not found favour to consider the sale deeds and award relied upon by land owners for the reason that land involved in

sale deeds Ext.PW5/B and Ext.PW5/C was too small i.e. one biswa each dis-entitling these sale deeds from considering as exemplar sale deeds.

Award Ext.PW5/D has also rightly been discarded by learned District Judge on the ground that, though, same is related to acquisition of land for the

same purpose i.e. construction of road as in the present cases, however, land involved therein was of village Benla Brahmna and there is no evidence

on record to establish the equivalence of nature and potential of land of both villages i.e. Benla Brahmna and Kandraur. Now only sale deed

Ext.PW4/A relied upon by land owners remains for consideration. On the basis of it, value of land becomes Rs 8 lac per bigha. However, the said

amount is lesser than the highest rate awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The land owners/claimants are entitled for uniform rate in the

present case and said rate cannot be lesser than the rate awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. In case value of land is determined on the basis

of Ext.PW4/A, the same will be lesser than the highest rate determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. Therefore, learned District Judge has

rightly ignored the said sale deeds also.

Learned District Judge has determined the value of acquired land on the basis of award approved and relied by the appellant(s)/State. There is no

other evidence on record to evaluate the value of land and there is no illegality or perversity in awarding the compensation on the basis of rate

determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. Therefore, I find no ground for interference in the impugned award passed by learned District Judge.

Accordingly, in view of above discussion and particularly judgment passed in RFA No.114 of 2016, respondents/land owners are held entitled to

compensation of acquired land at uniform rate of Rs 9,81,094/- per bigha irrespective of nature, classification and category of land along with all

consequential statutory benefits including interest and solatium under the Act.

Resultantly, appeal is dismissed. Record of the lower Court be sent back forthwith.