✦ Himachal Pradesh High Court · 03 Oct 2007

Date of decision October 3 v. State of H.P & Anr.

DEV DARSHAN SUD2 min read

Case at a glance

Decided
03 Oct 2007
Bench
DEV DARSHAN SUD

Judgment

The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - For the appellant(s): For the Respondents: Bhupinder Mr. Advocate, Gupta, Advocate. Gupta, Ms. Sr. Charu M.S.Chandel, Advocate Mr. General, with Mr. Rajan Dewan, Addl. AG. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral). These appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as they involve common questions of law and facts. The claimants have preferred these appeals against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Solan claiming enhancement in the compensation allowed by the learned Reference Court of the acquired lands of the petitioner. The basic facts are not in dispute before me. The learned Reference Court determined the fair market value of the acquired land at Rs.45,000/- per bigha and based on the judgments of the Hon(cid:146)ble Supreme Court, in State of H.P. and others v. Dharam Dass (1995) 5 SCC 683), deducted 40% from this assessed value, holding that deduction should be made on the market value of land which is greater in area when the comparative sale method is applied as the value of smaller chunks is more than that of large area of land. - 3 - Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the deduction which has been made by the learned Reference Court cannot be justified in law. I am not persuaded to take a different view from that which has been taken by the learned District Judge for the reason that even accepting the contention of learned counsel for the appellants, deduction has to be made for development of the land which has been fixed by the Hon(cid:146)ble Supreme Court at varying rates from

33.13% to 50%. After examining the evidence on record, I am satisfied that the appellants have been awarded fair and just compensation. In the facts and circumstances, there is no merit in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. October 3, 2007(PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Himachal Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments