The Land Acquisition Collector vs Munshi Ram and Others

Sanjay Karol, J.—All these appeals arise out of the common award dated 14.01.2004, passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. in Land Reference Petition No. 1 of 2001 titled Bansi Ram and Ors. v. The Land Acquisition Collector Bilaspur, H.P., Land Reference Petition No. 2 of 2001 titled Khazana Ram v. The Land Acquisition Collector Bilaspur, H.P., Land Reference Petition No. 3 of 2001 titled Ganga Ram v. The Land Acquisition Collector Bilaspur, H.P., Land Reference Petition No. 4 of 2001 titled Prabhu Ram through LRs Jeet Ram and Ors. v. The Land Acquisition Collector Bilaspur, H.P., Land Reference Petition No. 5 of 2001 titled Munshi Ram and Ors. v. The Land Acquisition Collector Bilaspur, H.P., Land Reference Petition No. 6 of 2001 titled Rup Lal and Ors. v. The Land Acquisition Collector Bilaspur, H.P., Land Reference Petition No. 7 of 2001 titled Sita Ram and Ors. v. The Land Acquisition Collector Bilaspur, H.P.

All petitions were consolidated and the Land Reference Petition No. 5 of 2001, titled as Munshi Ram and Ors. v. LAC was considered for the purposes of recording the common evidence.

For the public purpose namely, construction of Panoh Takrehra Highway, the claimants'' land situate in Village Ropa, was acquired by the State of Himachal Pradesh. The Notification dated 23rd September, 1993, issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') was published in the

H.P. Gazette on 16th October, 1993. The Collectors'' Award u/s 11 of the Act as Land Reference No. 18/1997 was passed on 22.09.1997. Different rates for different categories of acquired land was award ranging from Rs. 500/- (Khadyater) per biswa to Rs. 2000(Varani) per biswa.

Aggrieved by the same, the Claimants filed Land Reference Petitions u/s 18 of the Act, seeking enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per biswa. Compensation for the fruit bearing trees and damages for having taken possession of the land prior to the initiation of acquisition proceedings i.e. for the period 1974-75 upto 1993 was also claimed.

Details of land reference petition, khasra no, area and nature of the land of claimants are as under:

Sl. No.

Ref. petition No. and title

Khasra No.

Area

Nature of land

1.

5 of 2001 Munshi Ram etc. Vs. L.A.C.

11/1

1.5 bigha

Bahrli Doem

2.

1 of 2001 Banshi & Ballu vs. L.A.C.

41/1

41/2

0-6 biswas

0-2 biswas

Anderli Awal

3.

2 of 2001 Khazana Ram Vs. L.A.C.

16/1

0-18 1/3rd share

Anderli Doem

4.

3 of 2001 Ganga Ram Vs. L.A.C.

76/1

169/79/1

0-3 biswas

0-2 biswas

Anderli Doem

Anderli Doem

5.

4 of 2001 Prabhu through L.Rs vs. L.A.C.

15/1

35/1

40/1 123/19/1

0-18 biswa

0-2 biswa

1-7 bigha

1-13 bigha

0-3 biswa

0-2 biswa

Anderli Doem

Kahdyater.

Anderli Doem

Anderli Awal

Bahrli Awal

Khadyater

6.

6 of 2001 Rup Lal etc. vs. L.A.C.

122/19/1

2/1

0-5 biswa

0-4 biswa

0-6 biswa

0-8 biswa

Bahrli Awal

Bahrli Doem

Anderli Doem

Khadyater

7.

7 of 2001 Sita Ram etc. Vs. L.A.C.

75/1

21/1

1-0 bigha

2-5 bigha

0-7 Anderli Awal

0-12 Anderli Doem

1-3 Bahrli Awal

0-3 khadyater

Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Court below framed the following issues:

Whether the petitioners of these petitions are entitled to enhance amount of compensation, if so, to what extent and amount?...OPP

Relief.

In order to prove their case the claimants examined six witnesses. Apart from proving sale deed Ex. PA, petitioner also proved copy of the Award dated 11.9.2003 Ex.( PW-6/A) passed by the District Judge, showing that with respect to similar land situated in village Sharti, the land owners had been awarded compensation at the rate of 4000/- per biswa.

It is a matter of record that the respondents did not lead any oral evidence but only tendered in evidence sale deeds, Ex. RB and RC.

The Court below, after examining the statements of the parties came to the conclusion that sale deeds placed on record by the respective parties did not reflect true value of land and hence could not be made basis for determining market value of the acquired land. Hence, based on the Award (Ext. PW 6-A), the District Judge enhanced the compensation by awarding Rs. 4000/-per biswa, irrespective of classification/category of land.

In the present appeals Mr. Vivek Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the compensation awarded is much on the higher side.

Ms. Sharma, has supported the award for the reasons set-out therein.

Having heard the leaned counsel for the parties and perused the award, I am of the considered view that no case for interference is made out by the appellants.

The land in question was acquired for a public purpose. The extent of acquired land is not in issue in the present appeals. That land for the very same public purpose was also acquired in the adjoining village Sharti, is also not in dispute.

Claimants'' witnesses, more specifically, Shri Khazana Ram PW-6 has proved on record that the market value of land of Revenue Estate Ropa, under acquisition is more than the market value of land of Revenue Estate Sharti. It has been explained and elaborated that the quality, fertility, productivity and potentiality of the acquired land is better than the land of Revenue Estate, Sharti. Undisputedly, as is borne out from the record, two Revenue Estates are adjacent to each other. The similarity, potentiality and the location of the exemplar land with that of the acquired land stands proved on record. The exampler land was also acquired vide notification dated 18.09.1993, Published in H.P. Rajpatra on 02.10.1993. The Court below has rightly held that award Ex. PW-6/A can be considered and made basis for determining the market value of the acquired land. In terms of the award Ex. PW-6/A the land owners, whose land stood acquired for the same very purpose in the year 2003 were awarded Rs. 4.000/- per biswa. It is not the appellants'' case, as is evident from the grounds of appeal, that the said award has not attained finality.

The respondents herein made a vain attempt of showing that the Court below erred in rejecting the claimant''s contention that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 20,000/- per biswa. I am afraid that the respondents have not assailed the impugned award, hence, this question cannot be gone into at this stage. Noticeably, the quality of the petitioners'' land is superior in nature. The possession of the acquired land was taken over in the year, 1974. It stands established that the road in question was made open to the public in the year, 1975 itself. The claimants were deprived of their constitutional right to use of their land till the year, 1993. The Collector himself has awarded interest from the year, 1988.

Be that as it may be, the fact of the matter is that when similarly situated land owners were held entitled to compensation @ Rs. 4000/- per biswa then why should the present land owners be deprived of the same and awarded similar compensation.

This Court in Smt. Gulabi and etc. Vs. State of H.P., irrespective of the classification/ category and nature of the acquired land uniformally applied the awarded rates.

For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in the present appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed.