Tehri Hydro Development corporation v. Shri Bahart Singh
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 06 Sep 2006
- Bench
- P C VERMA, M M GHILDIYAL
Provisions considered
Judgment
Parties/appellants also produced Sri Bachan Singh Negi as D.W.1 in support of their case but did not adduce any documentary evidence, though filed documents papers Nos. 6-C in connection with eh award of claimant.
It is undisputed that the claimant’s Village- Malidevla situated on Tehri-Uttarkashi National Highway and the acquired land also lies on the same highway and near to Tehri City. It was also admitted to the opposite parties that no sale deed of Village-Malideval the period of three years prior the date of publication of notification in the gazette was available. It is also undisputed that there was ban on execution of sale deeds from the year 1992 due to construction of Tehri Dam. It has come in the evidence of P.W. 1 that the acquired land is fertile and is of good quality and every crops are grown on the said land. The land lies on the main road of Tehri city and every facility like, Bank, Post Office, Hospital, intermediate College etc. are available there.
The learned counsel respondent (claimant) vehemently contended that the Special Land Acquisition Officer made an award on 03.8.1995 of the land of Village-Bayali which is situated parallel to the village of claimants i.e. Village-Malidevla. In that award The Special Land Acquisition Officer took the sale deed of Village-Malideval of the year 1990. In the said sale deed the value of the land was fixed at Rs. 36,000/- per Nali for irrigated land, Rs. 18,000/- per Nali for category-I Land and Rs. 12,000/- per Nali for category-II land. Village- Bayali is situated 200 metres away from the main road, while Village-Malideval is situated on the main road. The Special Land Acquisition Officer committed error making the sale deed of Village-Tiwad as exemplar sale deed in this case. The reference court while recording its finding in issue No. 1 came to the conclusion that the Special Land Acquisition Officer committed grave error in not taking into account the rate fixed for the land of Village-Bayali. It has been proved from the evidence on record that eh land of Village-Malidevla is good quality land in every angle than the land of Village-Bayali. There was ban in execution of sale deeds from 25.1.1992 due to construction of Tehri Dam and in that circumstance the value of the land of Village-Bayali should have been taken for the land of Village-Malideval and the reference court has rightly assessed the value of the acquired land. We are in agreement with the finding recorded by the learned reference court. The impugned order needs no interference by this court.
In view of above, the appeal fails and dismissed. (M.M. Ghildiyal, J.) (P.C. Verma, J.) 06.09.2006
06.09.2006 P.Singh
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 54.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Uttarakhand High Court, on 06 Sep 2006. The bench was P C VERMA, M M GHILDIYAL.
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.