State of H.P. & Ors. v. Basant Ram & Ors.

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant: Mr. R.K.Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. V.D.Khidtta, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The present appeal arise out of common award dated

7.2.2003 passed by District Judge, Hamirpur, in Land Reference Petition No. 2/2000 titled as Shri Basant Ram and others vs. State of H.P, Ref. Petition No. 3/2000 titled as Bal Krishan and others vs. State of H.P. and another, Ref. Petition No. 7/2000 titled as Prem Dass and others vs. State Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 of H.P. and another, and Ref. Petition No. 8/2000, Raj Mal and others vs. State of H.P. and others, therefore, they are heard and disposed of together. For the public purpose, the construction of Baru-“Darkoti road, the claimants land was acquired vide Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 15.12.1995, lastly published on 20.1.1996. The Collector’s award under Section 11 of the Act was passed on 21.5.1997 whereby the following rates were determined as market value of the acquired land:- Bahand Banjar Rs.40/- per sq. mtr.

Banjar Kadim Rs.32/- per sq. mtr. Gair Mumkin Rs.21/- per sq. mtr. Dissatisfied with the same, the claimants filed different Land Reference Petitions which were heard and disposed of together. Appreciating the material on record (oral and documentary), the District Judge decided the Land Reference Petitions by a common award and enhanced the market value of the acquired land to be Rs.160/- per sq. mtr. irrespective of the category of land. Interest on the compensation was directed to be paid with effect from 1979 as possession of the land in question was actually taken over by the State at the time of construction of the road. The State alone has filed the present appeal and Mr. Jaswal, learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that not only compensation determined is on the higher side, but, however, awarding of the interest from the date prior to the issuance of the Notification is also contrary to the law of land.

3 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. In order to prove their case, the claimants have proved on record sale deed Ext.PB, award Ext.PA. The respondent-State has also produced copies of sale deeds Ext.RW-1/A, Ext.RW-1/B. From the testimony of the claimants’ witnesses Shri Parkash Chand (PW-1), Shri Bal Kishan (PW-2), Shri Prem Dass (PW-3), Shri Nek Ram (PW-4) and the respondents witnesses Shri Jagan Nath Sharma (RW-1), the location, potential and use of the acquired land is proved. The land in question is situated in Village Baru, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, which forms part of the Notified Committee, Hamirpur. It is on the Highway and well connected, having all amenities and facilities. In close proximity there is a market, a polytechnic college, office of the Electricity Board and industrial area around the acquired land. As on the date of issuance of Notification, acquiring the land, Hamirpur, was a fast developing town and there was an overall trend of increase of the market value of the land.

Ext.PA is the award dated 2.1.2001 passed by the District Judge, Hamirpur, in the Land Reference No. 2 of 1998. The same pertains to the acquisition initiated in the year 1996 for the very same public purpose. Based on the evidence led by the parties, the District Judge determined the market value of the acquired land to be Rs.112/- per sq. mtrs, irrespective of the nature of the land. For the purpose of determining the market value the Court below did not rely upon the same for the reason that there was nothing on record to prove the similarity of the land covered under the two awards. Whether this award has attained finality or not, there is nothing on record to prove the same. Hence, I am not considering the 4 same for the purpose of determining the matter in controversy in the present appeals. In Kanwar Singh vs. Union of India, (1998) 8 SCC 136, Shaji Kuria Kose vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (2001) 7 SCC 650, Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs.

Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1998) 3 SCC 751, ONGC Ltd. vs. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel and others, (2005) 6 SCC 454, Panna Lal Ghosh & ors vs. Land Acquisition Collector and Ors, (2004) 1 SCC 467 and Viluben Jhalejar Contractor vs. State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789, the Apex Court has held as under:- “True that Courts adopt comparable sales method of valuation of land while fixing the market value of the acquired land. While fixing the market value of the acquired land, comparable sales method of valuation of the land such as capitalization of net income method or expert opinion method. Comparable sales method of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land at which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it had been sold in the open market at the time of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act.

However, comparable sales method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive. There are certain factors which are required to be fulfilled and on fulfillment of those factors the compensation can be awarded, according to the value of the land reflected in the sales. The factors laid down inter alia are (1) the sale must be a genuine transaction, (2) that the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act, (3) that the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land and (4) that the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired. If all these factors are satisfied, then there is no reason why the 5 sale value of the land covered by the sales be not given for the acquired land. However, if there is a dissimilarity in regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land between land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to the court to reduce the compensation for acquired land than what is reflected in the sales depending upon the disadvantages attached with the acquired land.” [Shaji Kuria Kose vs.

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (2001) 7 SCC 650] The market value at the time of Notification under Section 4 of the Act is to be seen and while fixing such value of the acquired land, one of the things to be considered is the price at which the parties are ready to sell and purchase the land. Sale deed (Ext.RW-1/A) dated 31.5.1996 pertains to the period subsequent to the acquisition, therefore, the Court below rightly did not consider the same for determining the market value. In terms of Ext.RW-1/B dated 31.5.1996, 509.26 sq. mtrs. of land was sold for a sum of Rs.45,000/-, thus reflecting the market value to be Rs.90/- per sq. mtr. However, sale deed Ext.PB dated 28.11.1995, being proximate to the time of acquisition duly stands proved by the claimants. In terms of the said sale 55.58 sq. mtrs. land situated in Up-Mohal Baru where the acquired land is also situated, stood sold for a sum of Rs.9000/-. The market value in terms thereof comes to Rs.

163.62 sq. mtr. The claimants witnesses have proved that the land covered by exemplar sale deed Ext.PB is similar in nature, classification with the acquired land and its potential for being put to industrial use also stands proved by the witnesses. Therefore, in my view, the Court below has rightly taken sale deed Ext.PB, to be the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land while 6 determining just and fair compensation payable to the claimants for the acquired land. Even though the market value on the basis of exemplar sale comes to Rs.163.62 but taking into account all the mitigating circumstances, the Court arrived at a figure of Rs.160/- per sq. mtr. Importantly, the possession of the land was taken way back in the year 1979 when the road was constructed. The claimants, of course cannot be compensated prior to the issuance of the Notification in these proceedings, but however, the Court below has considered the entire material on record and only thereafter arrived at a figure which is reasonable, just and fair.