Shimla Jal Prabandhan Nigam Limited v. Sanjeev Kapil & Ors.

Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant: Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. : Mr. Diwaker Dev Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 2 and 3/State. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge(oral) The land of respondent No.1 in the case at hand, was acquired in Village Jannu, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, H.P. The land was acquired for construction of/laying of water supply line for Lift Drinking Water Scheme from Giri River at Sainj to Shima City. The award in the case at hand bearing No. 58 of 2008 was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector HPPWD, Shimla H.P. on 22.11.2008. In the award so passed, valuation of land was based on classification of land. Insofar as the Kalahoo Doem lands are concerned, the market 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 value was assessed at Rs. 84,000/- per biswa and insofar as Banjar and Ghasni lands are concerned, the market value of the same were assessed at Rs. 9,000/- per biswa. Besides the aforesaid, the Collector had also awarded compensation on account of damage to trees existing on the acquired land.

Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Collector, respondent No.1 had preferred reference petition bearing No. 10-S/4 of 2016/2009, the same was decided on

12.01.2017. In the same, the reference Court had held that the present respondent No.1 entitled for compensation at a uniform rate of Rs.84,000/- per biswa irrespective of the nature/classification of land acquired. Besides the aforesaid, for 43 of pear trees damaged on account of acquisition of the lands of respondent No.1, an amount of Rs.29,951/- has been awarded by the reference Court.

Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.01.2017 passed in Reference Petition No. 10-S/4 of 2016/2009, by the Additional District Judge (Special Judge CBI Court, Shimla) the beneficiary for whom the acquisition had been made i.e. Shimla Jal Prabandhan Limited through its Managing Director has preferred the present appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. The grounds for challenge are two fold namely, A). The first contention raised by the petitioner is qua the assessment value of land acquired. According to the learned counsel 3 appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the same is based on the deposition of PW/4 i.e. Deep Ram and the sale of land made by Deep Ram to one Sunil Kumar, vide sale deed. The said sale deed according to the petitioner pertains to the adjoining Village Bagra and not to Village Jannu, where the acquisition has taken place. Other than the aforesaid, the land in question vide sale deed Exhibit PW/3/D as per the petitioner was sold by Deep Ram to his relative Sunil Kumar and hence, according to the petitioner, the same is a fictitious sale deed and no reliance should be placed on the same. B) The award of compensation at uniform rates in the case at hand is also disputed.

Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the record. Insofar as the valuation of the land acquired is concerned, it is an admitted fact that there are no sale deeds pertaining to sale of land in Village Jannu Tehsil Theog, District Shimla. The respondent has placed reliance upon sale deed Exhibit PW/3/D, whereby Deep Ram PW/4 had sold 0-00-75 hectare of land for a sum of Rs.60,000/- to Sunil Kumar son of Laxmi Chand vide sale deed dated 29.09.2005 (Exhibit PW-3/D). While appearing in the witness box Deep Ram (PW- 4) had submitted that in the year 2005, in his Village, the rate of land was approximately 30,000/- per biswa. He had further stated in his Examination-in-Chief that on account of an eye operation, he required money and therefore, he had sold two biswas of land for Rs.60,000/- to 4 his grandson Sunil Kumar Sharma son of Sh. Laxmi Chand Sharma. In his examination-in-chief, he has further submitted that his grandson does not live with him since the last about 10 years. In cross examination, he had categorically submitted that Laxmi father of Sunil does not live with him. Nothing has been placed on record or elicited during cross examination that Deep Ram, his son Laxmi, grandson (Sunil) are also beneficiaries of the acquisition in the case at hand. In other words, nothing has been placed on record to show that the lands of the aforesaid individuals have also been acquired. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sale deed relied upon i.e. Exhibit PW/3/D is fictitious is without merit and therefore, liable to be rejected. No other points urged.

The land acquisition collector in the case at hand had awarded compensation on the basis of classification of land. The reference Court has correctly awarded a uniform rate irrespective of the nature of the land, I see no infirmity in the same.

The law with respect to award of compensation at uniform rates, when the purpose of acquisition is common and no developmental activity is required to be carried out is no longer res integra and stands settled by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Viluben Jhalejar (supra); Himmat Singh and others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another, (2013) 16 SCC 392 (para 34); Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Dead ) By Legal Representatives and others Versus State of 5 Karnataka and another , (2015) 10 SCC 469 (paras 80 and 81); as also this Court in RFA No. 953 of 2012, titled as Land Acquisition Collector & another Versus Jatinder Singh, decided on 01.06.2016 and other connected matters.

In view thereof, present petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. 22nd May 2025 (Tarun) (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge