Land Acquisition Collector & Another v. Jatinder Singh, Himachal Pradesh High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Haridwar Development Authority vs. Raghubir Singh & others, (2010) 11 SCC 581	Upheld award of compensation on uniform rates; acknowledged principle of allowing increase in market value up to 10%–12% per year for land near urban areas with potential for non‑agricultural development.	The court applied the principle in Haridwar Development Authority to justify uniform assessment and to carry out a necessary deduction (25%) in the present case when relying on small‑parcel sale deeds; the opinion expressly states the trial court applied this precedent in its computation.
Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh & others, 2005 (12) SCC 564	Apex Court uniformly awarded compensation (Rs.40,000 per acre) irrespective of classification and category of land in that case.	The judgment was cited to support the principle that uniform valuation can be appropriate; the court relied on it as authority for awarding compensation uniformly irrespective of classification.
Nelson Fernandes & Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa & Ors., (2007) 9 SCC 447	Where land is acquired for a purpose (e.g., railway line) and there is no question of development, no deduction by way of development charges is permissible.	The court cited this authority to support that no development‑charge deduction is permissible where the acquired land is not to be developed as part of the acquiring scheme; used in reasoning about valuation adjustments.
Gulabi & others v. State of H.P., AIR 1998 HP 9	Where land is acquired for a single public purpose (e.g., National Highway‑21), claimants are entitled to compensation uniformly for all classes of land irrespective of classification or quality.	The court treated this decision as supportive of the uniform compensation principle; while noting facts differ, the court accepted and followed the underlying principle for uniform valuation.
H.P. Housing Board vs. Ram Lal & Ors., 2003 (Shim. L.C.) 64 (and related final Supreme Court dismissal)	When land is developed as a single unit (housing colony), classification loses significance and entire land may be assessed uniformly.	The opinion notes this Court followed that principle and relied upon it to justify uniform compensation for land acquired for a single public purpose in the present matters.
Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittor v. L. Kamlamma (Smt.) Dead by LRs and others & K. Krishnamachariann and others, (1998) 2 SCC 385	Disapproved meticulous classification into different rates merely because a portion abuts main road; uniform assessment may be reasonable when land acquired in one block.	The court cited this Supreme Court holding to reject fine‑grained classification in the present consolidated acquisitions and to support uniform valuation principles.
Special Land Acquisition Officer Versus Karigowda and others, (2010) 5 SCC 708	Emphasizes that the obligation to pay fair compensation is on the State and courts must scrutinize evidence led in reference proceedings.	The opinion relied on this authority to state that while onus is on claimants, there is also an obligation on the State and the court to examine evidence; used to frame evidentiary expectations.
Panna Lal Ghosh & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors., (2004) 1 SCC 467	Instances of sale of the same or adjacent land shortly before or after notification are the usual and best evidence of market value.	The court invoked this precedent to justify reliance on sale deeds produced by claimants as guiding evidence of market value.
Shakuntalabai (Smt.) & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 2 SCC 152	Sale instances of similar land in same or neighbouring villages can be guiding factors for market value.	Referenced among authorities supporting the use of comparable sale instances for valuation; the court used the doctrine to consider sale deeds produced.
ONGC Limited v. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel & Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 454	Instances of sale in neighboring lands are evidentiary guides for market value.	Used as one of the authorities establishing that comparable sales are admissible and useful evidence in determining market value.
Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai (Deceased) through his Heirs & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, (1989) 4 SCC 250	Principles concerning what constitutes market value for Section 23 purposes (price between willing vendor and willing purchaser; prices of similar lands are best evidence).	Cited for the legal definition of market value and for the proposition that comparable sale prices around the time of notification are the best evidence; the court relied on this to evaluate evidence.
Atma Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another, (2008) 2 SCC 568	Factors relevant to market value: condition, situation, user, proximity to residential/commercial/industrial areas, amenities, prospects of development.	The court cited this decision to enumerate factual factors relevant to assessing potential and hence market value of the acquired land in the present matters.
Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (Dead) by LRs. & Ors., (2005) 12 SCC 1	Best method is to determine amount a willing purchaser would pay to the owner; in absence of direct evidence, courts may use other known methods including awards/judgments of same or neighboring villages.	Applied as authority for valuation methodologies and for permitting recourse to comparable awards and judgments where direct sale evidence is absent or limited.
Suresh Kumar v. Town Improvement Trust, Bhopal, (1989) 2 SCC 329	Market value must be correctly determined and paid so that there is neither unjust enrichment of the acquirer nor undue deprivation of the owner.	Invoked to underline the requirement of a correct determination of compensation balancing interests of acquirer and owner.
Special Land Acquisition Officer, BYDCA, Bagalkot v. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib, (2002) 3 SCC 688	Recognizes allowance of appreciation (the court below in that case gave 10% appreciation for years between sale and acquisition).	The trial court (and this Court in review) applied the approach of granting 10% appreciation for the years between execution of sale deeds and acquisition; the opinion records that the court below gave 10% appreciation under this authority.
Government (NCT of Delhi) and others v. Ajay Kumar and others, (2014) 13 SCC 734; Haryana State Agricultural Market Board and another v. Krishan Kumar and others, (2011) 15 SCC 297; Pattammal and others v. Union of India and another, (2005) 13 SCC 63; Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan v. Bipin Kumar and another, (2004) 2 SCC 283	Principle that income generated by the State from agricultural produce is not determinative of the real market value of acquired land.	The court relied on these authorities to reject valuation approaches that depended on State agricultural revenue averages as determinative of market value; used to justify not accepting the Collector's revenue‑based method.
Executi ve Engineer & Anr. v. Dilla Ram (Latest HLJ 2008 HP 1007) (Himachal decision)	Instance where this Court followed Supreme Court authority (Harinder Pal Singh) in awarding compensation on uniform rates.	The present Court noted it had followed the same principle in that Himachal decision and relied on analogous reasoning in support of uniform valuation.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

SHIMLA

RFA No. 953 of 2012-C a/w RFA Nos.61, 63, 64 & CO No.977/2012, 65 & CO

No.1005/2012, 66 & CO No.978/2012, 67, .

69 & CO No.979/2012, 70 & . CO No.1008/2012, 71 & CO No.1009/2012, 72 & P CO No.1007/2012, 170, 171 & CO No.982/2012, 172 & CO No.983/2012, 173 &

CO No.984/2012, 174 & CO No.985/2012,

223 & CO No.39/2016, 2 f 24, 2 H 25 & CO No.1012/2012, 226 & CO No.356/2013, 227, 309 & CO No.872/2012, 310, 572, 573, 574, 575 & CO No.44/2014, 576, 577, 578, 579, 703, 704 & CO No.358/2013, 705, 706, 707,

708, 710, 71 t 1, o 712, 713 & CO No.1136/201 r 4, 714 & CO No.355/2013, 715, 716 & CO No.359/2013, 717 & CO No.34/2016, 718, 719 & CO No.361/2013, 720 & C u O No.362/2013, 721, 722, 723, 730, 731 & CO No.363/2013, 741, 742, 743, 744, 74 o 5, 747, 748, 749, 750, 751, 753, 755, 756, 757, 758, 759, 760, 761, 762, 763, 765, 768, 769, 770, 778, 790, 791 & CO C No.357/2013, 876 of 2012 & CO No.364/2013 and RFA No.104 of 2013. Reserved on : 04.05.2016. h Date of Decision: June 1 , 2016. g 1. RFA No. 953 of 2012 i

Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus H

Jatinder Singh ...Respondent. 2. RFA No. 61 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus Sadha Devi ...Respondent. 3. RFA No. 63 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant.

Versus

Sita Ram ...Respondent.

4. RFA No. 64 of 2012 & CO No.977/2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus

Desh Raj ...Respondent.

5. RFA No. 65 of 2012 & CO No.1005/2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. .

Versus Karam Chand ...Respondent.P

6. RFA No.66 of 2012 & CO No.978/2012 .

Land Acquisition Collector & another. … Ap H pellant. Versus Ramesh Chand .. f .Respondent. 7. RFA No. 67 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & anoth er. o …Appellant. Versus Fakir Chand r t ...Respondent. 8. RFA No. 69 of 2012 & CO No.979/2012 Land Acquisition Collec u tor & another. …Appellant. Versus Kuldeep Singh o ...Respondent. 9. RFA No. 70 of 2012 & CO No.1008/2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus

Suresh Ch an C d ...Respondent. 10. h RFA No. 71 of 2012 & CO No.1009/2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. g Versus i

Satabi Om ...Respondent.. 11. RFA No. 72 of 2012 & CO No. 1007/2012 H

Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus Geeto Devi ...Respondent. 12. RFA No.170 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus Kamal Singh ...Respondent.

13. RFA No. 171 of 2012 & CO No.982/2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus

Ranjeet Singh ...Respondent.

14. RFA No. 172 of 2012 & CO No.983/2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. .

Versus Narinder Kumar ...Respondent.P

15. RFA No. 173 of 2012 & CO No.984/2012 .

Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Ap Versus H pellant.

Hans Raj ...R espondent.

16. RFA No. 174 of 2012 & CO No.985/20 f 12 Land Acquisition Collector & another. o …Appellant. Versus Raghubir Singh ...Respondent.

17. RFA No. 223 of 2012 & r CO t No.39/2016 Land Acquisition Colect u or & another. …Appellant. Versus Hari Singh ...Respondent.

18. RFA No. 224 of 2012 Land Acquisition C o ollector & another. …Appellant. Versus

Jalli Devi C ...Respondent. 19. RFA No. 225 of 2012 & CO No.1012/2012 Land h Acq uisition Collector & another. …Appellant. g Versus i

Shamsher Singh ...Respondent. 20. RFA No. 226 of 2012 & CO No.356/2013 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant.

Versus Rattan Singh ...Respondent. 21. RFA No. 227of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus Malkiat Singh ...Respondent.

22. RFA No. 309 of 2012 & CO No.872/2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus

Balwant Singh ...Respondent.

23. RFA No. 310 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. .

Versus Kaushalya Devi ...Respondent.P

24. RFA No. 572 of 2012 .

Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus H

Randhir Singh Pathania . f ..R espondent. 25. RFA No.573 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & anoth er. o …Appellant. Versus Harbhajan Singh r t ...Respondent. 26. RFA No. 574 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collec u tor & another. …Appellant. Versus Vimla Devi Jamwa o l ...Respondent. 27. RFA No. 575 of 2012 & CO No.44/2014 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus

Yogesh Ku m C ar ...Respondent. 28. h RFA No. 576 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. g Versus i

Rameshwar Singh Pathania ...Respondent. 29. RFA No. 577 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant.

Versus Janardhan Singh Pathania ...Respondent. 30. RFA No. 578 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus Madan Lal ...Respondent.

31. RFA No. 579 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus

Sunil Singh ...Respondent.

32. RFA No. 703 of 2012 Land Acqu isition Collector & another. …Appellant. .

Versus Satpal Singh ...Respondent. P

33. RFA No. 704 of 2012 & CO No.358/2013 .

Land Acquisition Collector & another. … Appellant. Versus HMalkiat Singh ...Respondent.

34. RFA No. 705 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. f…Appellant. Versus

Vikram Singh o ...Respondent.

35. RFA No. 706 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & r anotther. …Appellant. Versus Manohar Chand ...Respondent.

36. RFA No. 707 of 20u12 Land Acquisition C o ollector & another. …Appellant. Versus Rajesh Ku ma C r ...Respondent. 37. RFA No. 708 of 2012 Land h Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus g i

Susham Devi ...Respondent. 38. RFA No. 710 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. H

Versus Karan Singh ...Respondent. 39. RFA No. 711 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus Daljeet Singh ...Respondent.

40. RFA No. 712 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus

Roshan Lal ...Respondent.

41. RFA No. 713 of 2012 & CO No.1136/2014 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. .

Versus Guru ...Responde . nt.P

42. RFA No. 714 of 2012 & CO No.355/2013 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus H

Nikka Ram . f ..R espondent. 43. RFA No. 715 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & anoth er. o …Appellant. Versus Om Parkash r t ...Respondent. 44. RFA No. 716 of 2012 & CO No.359/2013 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant.

o V u ersus Tarsem Lal ...Respondent. 45. RFA No C . 717 of 2012 & CO No.34/2016 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus Bant h i Lal ...Respondent. 46. RFA No. 718 of 2012 g Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. i

Versus Janak Singh ...Respondent. H

47. RFA No. 719 of 2012 & CO No.361/2013 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus Kamakya Devi ...Respondent. 48. RFA No. 720 of 2012 & CO No.362/2013 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus

Saroop Singh ...Respondent.

49. RFA No. 721 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus

Netar Singh ...Respondent.

50. RFA No. 722 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. .

Versus Mohinder Lal ...Responde . nt.P

51. RFA No. 723 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus H

Kalo Devi . f ..Respondent. 52. RFA No. 730 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & ano t th er. o …Appellant. Versus Kirna Devi r ...Respondent. 53. RFA No. 731 of 20 u 12 & CO No.363/2013 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus Santokh Singh ...Respondent.

54. RFA No. 741 of 2012 Land Acquisition Coollector & another. …Appellant. Versus

Bald h ev Sin gh

C ...Respondent.

55. RFA No.742 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant.

ig Versus Amar Singh ...Respondent. 56. RFA No. 743 of 2012 H

Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus Jagdev Singh ...Respondent. 57. RFA No. 744 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus

Shukaro Devi ...Respondent.

58. RFA No. 745 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus

Rattani Devi ...Respondent.

59. RFA No.747 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. .

Versus Satya Devi ...Responde . nt.P

60. RFA No. 748 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus H

Raj Bhagwan . f ..R espondent. 61. RFA No. 749 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & anoth er. o …Appellant. Versus Rattani Devi r t ...Respondent. 62. RFA No.750 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus

Lajwanti u ...Respondent.

63. RFA No. 751 o of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus

Bijli P h ehlw an

C ...Respondent.

64. RFA No. 753 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant.

Versus Jeet Kaur ...Respondent.

65. RFA No. 755 of 2012

Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus Sudesh Kumari ...Respondent. 66. RFA No. 756 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus

Sheela Devi ...Respondent.

67. RFA No.757 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus

Sohan Singh ...Respondent.

68. RFA No. 758 of 2012 .

Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus

Padam Dev Singh ...Responde . nt.

69. RFA No.759 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. … Ap H pellant. Versus Bhim Sain o . f ..Respondent. 70. RFA No. 760 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus

Parkash Chand t ...Respondent.

71. RFA No. 761 of 2012 r

Land Acquisition Collec u tor & another. …Appellant. Versus Roshan Lal C o ...Respondent. 72. RFA No. 762 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. h Versus Kaur Chand ...Respondent. g 73. RFA No.763 of 2012 i

Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus H

Desh Raj ...Respondent. 74. RFA No. 765 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus Giano Devi ...Respondent.

75. RFA No. 768 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus

Prittam Chand ...Respondent.

76. RFA No. 769 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. .

Versus Sarvjeet ...Responde . nt.P

77. RFA No.770 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. … Ap H pellant. Versus Puran Chand . f ..Respondent. 78. RFA No. 778 of 2012 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellan t.

Versus o

Satpal Singh r t ...Respondent. 79. RFA No. 790 of 2012 & CO No.357/2013 Land Acquisition Collec u tor & another. …Appellant. Versus Sikandar Singh o ...Respondent. 80. RFA No. 791 of 2012 Land Acquis C ition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus Kish h ore Chand ...Respondent. 81. RFA No. 876 of 2012 & CO No.364/2013 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. g i

Versus Harbans Singh ...Respondent. H

82. RFA No.104 of 2013 Land Acquisition Collector & another. …Appellant. Versus Naseeb Chand ...Respondent. Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? ¹Yes.

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

For the Appellants: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, AG., with M/s R.S. Verma and R.M. Bisht Addl.

AGs., for the appellant(s)-

State/non-objector(s).

For the Respondents: Mr.R.K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate with .

Mr.Gaurav Gautam and Ms.Megha Kapoor Gautam, Advocates for th P e respondent(s) and for the Cross- objector(s) in CO Nos.977, 1 H 005, 9 . 78, 979, 1008, 1009, 1007, 98 2, 983, 984, 985/2012, 39/2016, 1012/2012, 356 of 2013, 872/2012, 44/2 f 014, 358/2013, 1136/2014, 355/2013, 359/2013, 34/2016, 361/2013, 362/2013, 363/2013, 357/2013 and 364/2013.

Sanjay Karol, J. o

At the time of hea r ring t , learned counsel for the parties jointly prayed t u hat all these appeals and cross-objections be heard together and disposed of by a common ju C dgmen o t. This was for the reason that notwithst anding the difference in the dates of com h mencement of acquisition proceedings. Purpose of g acquisition being common, and the evidence, similar in i

nature, so led in six cases, the point in issue is similar. H

Also the land is situate in an area where there is not much variation in the geographical and topographical conditions. It is also submitted that the Court below itself had consolidated the cases and as desired by the parties,

permitted evidence to be led only in six lead cases, which

also is similar in nature and except for different sale deeds produced in different cases, pertaining to the period prior to the commencement of acquisition proceedings, other evidence is almost identical. .

2. In these appeals arising out of awards da . te P d 30.06.2011, 17.11.2011, 30.11.2011, 08.12.2011, and 19.04.2012, passed by the Court below, inH various reference petitions, so filed under Se o ction f 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafte t r r eferred to as the Act), the Court below has uniformly re-determined the market value of the acquired l u and f r rom `2,30,000/- per hectare to `7,20,000/- per o hectare. 3. Both the State and the claimants are aggrieved C of the same and have filed the instant appe h als/cross-objections. g 4. Challenge is on two grounds: (a) Court below i

erred in uniformly determining the market value of the H

acquired land; and (b) re-determination of the market value is on the higher /lower side. 5. For the public purpose, namely, construction of water source to be constructed by the Irrigation and Public Health Department, in relation to the Shah Nehar

Project, Fatehpur, land of all the claimants, situate in Dhoulpur, Rey, Chabbar, Tatwali, Badhukhar and Duhag, came to be acquired. Proceedings for acquisition of the land, under the provisions of the Act, came to be initiated .

with the publication of different Notifications da . te P d 22.09.1998, 30.01.1999, 11.06.1999, 18.06.1999 and 19.07.2002, so issued under Section 4 of t heH Act. The proceedings came to be culminated wit f h the awards passed by the Collector Land A t cq uis o ition under Section 11 of the Act and the posses r sion of the land being taken over. The Collector L u and Acquisition, determined the market value of th o e land, category wise on different rates as per different awards dated 07.04.2001, 11.01.2001, 10.01.200 2, C 29.01.2002, 28.04.2003 and 26.12.2003. 6. h

Dissatisfied with the same, claimants filed g various land reference petitions, which came to be i

clubbed together. The claimants set up a claim seeking H

re-determination of the market value ranging from `26 lacs to `39 lacs, which on the basis of evidence on record was found to be `7.20 lacs. 7. The question which needs to be considered is as to whether the awards need to be interfered, on the

asking of either of the parties or not? Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, Court is of the considered view, that the re- determination of the market value of the acquired land is .

absolutely just, fair and reasonable. .P

8. It is not in dispute before this Cou rt, as is also evident from the material placed on record,H that the entire acquired land stood fully utilized f for the public

purpose. Canal stood construc te o d over the entire

acquired land. t

9. Now it is a s u ettle r d principle of law that if the entire land is put o for a public use and no area is left out for carrying out any developmental activity, then the claimants a C re entitled for compensation for the entire acqu h ired land, at uniform rates , regardless of its g categorization. i

10. The apex Court in Haridwar Development H

Authority vs. Raghubir Singh & others, (2010) 11 SCC 581 has upheld the award of compensation on uniform rates. Also it has acknowledged the principle of providing increase in the market value up to 10% to 12% per year

for the land situated near urban areas having potential for non-agricultural development.

11. In Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh and others 2005(12) SCC 564, while determining the .

compensation for acquisition of land pertaining to f . iv P e different villages, the apex Court uniformly awarded a sum of ` 40,000/- per acre, irrespect iveH of the classification and the category of land. f

12. Further, in Nelson Fe t rn ad o es vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer 2007(9) r SCC 447 while dealing with the case where the u land was acquired for laying a Railway line, the C o ourt held that no deduction by way of development charges was permissible as there was no question o f a C ny development thereof. 13. h This Court, in Gulabi and etc. vs. State of H.P., g AIR 1998 HP 9, where the land was acquired for the i

purpose of construction of National Highway-21, held that H

the claimants would be entitled to compensation uniformly for all classes of land irrespective of its classification or quality. I am conscious that the facts are different in the instant case and the principle laid down therein cannot be applied stricto sensu. But however, this

principle was followed and accepted by this Court in H.P. Housing Board vs. Ram Lal & Ors. 2003(3), Shim. L. C. 64, wherein the land was acquired for the purposes of setting up of a Housing Colony by the respondent authority itself. .

The Court held that: .P

"27. When the land is being deve H loped for a housing colony, as in the present case, classification completely loose f s significance. Reason being that it has t o o be developed as a single unit i.e. for ho using colony. Similarly allowing higher price for land near the road and for the one which r is a t t a distance from the road also does no u t provide any reasonable, muchless rational basis to allow less price for the area. Reason o being that a person may be interested to reside near the road side in a developed colony for s C o may reasons. Whereas another, may like to live in the vicinity which is away from the road to h

avoid husble and bustle of being near the roadside and for many other reasons. In these g

circumstances it cannot be said that location of i

the land and its distance from the road is a good criteria and/ or for that matter classification for the

assessment of compensation. In my view entire land under acquisition should have been assessed at Rs.200 per sq. meter irrespective of its classification and/ or distance from the road."

28. Faced with this situation, Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate, on behalf of Housing Board submitted, that it is matter of common knowledge that plots

situated on the roadside carry higher price, as compared to the plots which are away from the road. This argument cannot be accepted in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in the case of Land Acquisition Officer Revenue .

Divisional Officer, Chittor v. L. Kamlamma (Smt.) Dead by LRs and others K. Krishnamachari anPd others, (1998) 2 SCC 385. What was held an.d is relevant was as under:- H

"7. The argument advanced by f Sh ri Nageswara Rao that the classification by the Land Acquisition Officer was in order and ought not to have been

interfered with by the t ref ereonce court or the High Court does not a r ppeal to us. When a land is acquired which has the potentiality of being developed in u to an urban land, merely because some po o rtion of it abuts the main road, higher rate of compensation should be paid while in respect of t C he lands on the interior side it should be at lower rate may not stand to reason because when sites h

are formed those abutting the main road may have its advantages as well as disadvantages. g

Many a discerning customer may prefer to stay in i

the interior and far away from the main road and may be willing to pay a reasonably higher price for H

that site. One cannot rely on the mere possibility so as to indulge in a meticulous exercise of classification of the land as was done by the Land Acquisition Officer when the entire land was acquired in one block and, therefore, classification of the same into different categories does not

stand to reason."

14. This judgment has attained finality as SLP (Civil) No. 15674-15675 of 2004 titled as Himachal Pradesh Housing Board vs. Ram Lal (D) by LRs & Others, .

filed by the H.P. Housing Board was dismissed by th P e Apex Court on 16.8.2004. .

15. This judgment was subsequently re H ferred to and relied upon by this Court in Executi f ve Engineer & Anr. vs . Dilla Ram {Latest HLJ 2008 H o P 1007} and relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Harinder Pal Singh (supra) , wherein the marke r t vtalue of the land under

acquisition situated in f u ive different villages was assessed uniformly irrespe o ctive of its nature and quality, also awarded com C pensation on uniform rates. 16. It is a matter of fact that the entire land was put h to public purpose. Canal stood constructed

ig thereupon. It was used for only one purpose and as such there cannot be any error in uniform determination of the

market value of the acquired land. 17. Hence there cannot be any error in the awards to this extent. More so, for the reason, as has come in the unrebutted testimony of Satpal Singh (PW.1) that

most of the acquired land was either put to agricultural use or had potential thereof.

18. Now this takes us to the second question. It is a settled principle of law that land reference petition is to .

be adjudicated as a plaint and the onus to prove . th P e claim is on the claimants.

19. It is a settled principle of law th f at thHe onus to prove entitlement to receive higher compensation is upon the claimants. The claima t nt s a o re expected to lead cogent and proper evidence r in support of their claim. Onus primarily is on u the claimants, which they can discharge while o placing and proving on record sale instances and/or such other evidences as they deem proper, k ee C ping in mind the method of computation for awa h rding of compensation which they rely upon. g However, it cannot be said that there is no onus i

whatsoever upon the State in such reference H

proceedings. The court cannot lose sight of the facts and clear position of documents, that obligation to pay fair compensation is on the State in its absolute terms. Every case has to be examined on its own facts and the courts are expected to scrutinise the evidence led by the parties

in such proceedings. (See: Special Land Acquisition Officer Versus Karigowda and others, (2010) 5 SCC 708).

20. It is also a settled principle of law that the claimants have to establish their case by leading clear, .

cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence. Su . ch P

evidence has to be within the meaning an d H scope of Section 3 and other relevant provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. Only such evidence f so proven in

accordance with law, which is t adm is o sible is required to be considered by the Court.

21. The most reliable r way to determine the value is to rely on the i o nstan u ces of sale portions of the same land as stands acquired or adjacent lands made shortly before or a C fter the Section 4 Notification. {Panna Lal Gho h sh & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. (2004) g 1 SCC 467} i

22. If there is evidence or admission on behalf of H

the claimants as to the market value commanded by the acquired land itself, the need to travel beyond the boundary of the acquired land is obviated. Instances of sale in respect of the similar land situated in the same village and/or neighbouring villages could be taken to be

a guiding factors for determination of market value. {Shakuntalabai (Smt.) & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (1996) 2 SCC 152, ONGC Limited v. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel & Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 454}. .

23. In the instant case, the claimants referred . to P

earlier awards dated 30.06.2011 (Ex.P1), so p H assed by Additional District Judge-(II), Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., in RBT Refe o renc f e Case No.9-J/2011/2004, titled as Sures t h Chand Versus Land Acquisition Collector. However, the trial Court rightly did not rely there upon the u sam r e for it being subject matter of challenge in an o appeal. 24. Record reveals that all the land references were conso C lidated and common evidence led by the

part h ies in six cases. In a tabulated form, evidence led in g each of the six cases, is shown here-in-under:- i

RFA & CO Award Date of Date of Date/Exhibit Witnesses Nos. of lead (S.18 of notification award of of the Sale examined case the Act) u/s. 4 of Collector Deeds the Act (u/s.11 of the Act) RFA 19.4.2012 30.1.1999 28.4.2003 Ex.PW.1/C, Kewal No.953/2012 Ex.PW.1/D Singh & Ex.PW.1/E (PW.1), Lal Singh

(RW.1)

RFA 30.11.2011 11.6.1999 29.1.2002 Ex.PW.1/B, Satpal No.703/2012 Ex.PW.1/C Singh

& (PW.1), Jai

Ex.PW.1/D Singh

(RW.1)

RFA 8.12.2011 30.1.1999 10.1.2002 Ex.PW.1/B Sikander No.790/2012 to Singh

Ex.PW.1/G (PW.1), Jai

Singh

(RW.1)

RFA 17.11.2011 19.7.2002 26.12.2K3 Ex.PW.1/D, Shamsher No.225/2012 Ex.PW.1/E & Singh .

& CO No. Ex.PW.1/F (PW.1), Jai 1012/2012 Singh

(RW.1) P

RFA 30.11.2011 18.6.1999 11.1.2001 Ex.PW.1/A Satish .

No.573/2012 to Kumar Ex.PW.1/ D H (PW.1), f

Jamil Mohd. (RW.1) RFA 30.6.2011 22.9.1998 7.4.2011 Ex.PW.2/B, Joginder No.70/2012& Ex.PW.2/C Singh CO No. & (PW.1),

1008/2012 t o Ex.PW.2/D Suresh Chand r

(PW.2), Prakash Chand u

(RW.1) Amongst them lea o d case was taken as Reference Case RBT No.68- C J/2010/2006, titled as Satpal Singh Versus Land Acqu isition Collector. Court is conscious of the fact that h Notifications and the award vary over a period of g two years but it is seen that in all the cases, nature of i

evidence is similar, in fact stereotyped. As such,

evidence in this case is being discussed. 25. Now significantly from the testimonies of two witnesses examined by the parties, namely, Satpal Singh (PW.1) and Jai Singh Kanungo (RW.1), certain undisputed

facts have emerged. The land in question was acquired

for the purpose of construction of a Canal. The land was put to agricultural use by the villagers. However, with the construction of a Canal, their agricultural land came to be divided into two portions, not only diminishing . its

utility but also causing inconvenience and hardship to th P e land owners. The width of the Canal is just 15 meters. It is not the case of either of the parties f th at Hthe land owners were to be benefited by way o o f Irrigation. In fact, Canal was constructed to irrigate the lands not in the State of Himachal Pradesh, b t ut in the neighbouring

States of Punjab, Haray u ana a r nd Rajasthan. 26. It is als o o evident from their testimonies that in close proximity there is a township. If one were to travel on foot, at t C he nearest habitation, there is an ITI/College

at a h dista nce of 2 kms and if one were to travel by road, g then it is only 6 kms. However, if one were to travel i

through a longer route i.e. the bye-pass (National H

Highway) then it would be approximately 24 kms. There is variation with regard to the distance of the boundary of the neighbouring State i.e. Punjab. It is between 1.5 kms to 10 kms. But it also stands established that land is situated around a township and is easily accessible from

all sides and by all means. Also part of the irrigation project was in existence, much prior to the issuance of the notification in the lead case. All the area where the land stood acquired was accessible by motorable road. .

Township of Pathankot is also closeby. Thus, it . i P s evidently clear that the entire land had great potential of being put to both agricultural/horticultur al Has also commercial use. Land cannot be sa o id to f be situated in the hinterland or remotest corner o f the State.

27. It is also evidently cl t ear as is so admitted by Jai Singh (RW-1) that the C r ollector had determined the market value of o the l u and by taking into account the annual average of the revenue generated by the State from the ag C ricultural produce. Now this in view of the law h laid down by the Apex Court in Government (NCT of g Delhi) and others Versus Ajay Kumar and others, (2014) i

13 SCC 734; Haryana State Agricultural Market Board and H

another Versus Krishan Kumar and others, (2011) 15 SCC 297; Pattammal and others Versus Union of India and another, (2005) 13 SCC 63; and Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan, District Badaun through its Secretary Versus Bipin Kumar and another, (2004) 2 SCC 283, was

not permissible for income generated by the State from agricultural produce is not determinative of the real market value of acquired land.

28. Now what is that real market value of the .

acquired land, the Apex Court has clearly held it to . be P

that which a willing vendor and willing vende e H are ready to pay and receive.

29. The market value of a o pro f perty for the purposes of Section 23 of the Ac t t is the price at which the property changes hands from a willing seller to a willing, but not too anxious a u buy r er, dealing at arms length. Prices fetched for o similar lands with similar advantages and potentialities under bona fide transactions of sale at or about the C time of the preliminary notification are the usua h l and, indeed the best evidences of market value. g {Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai (Deceased) through his Heirs i

and LRs. and Others v. State of Gujarat (1989) 4 SCC 250, H

Nelson Fernandes & Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa & Ors. (2007) 9 SCC 447}. 30. The market value is the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property having due regard to its existing condition with all its

existing advantages and its potential possibilities when led out in most advantageous manner, excluding any advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for which the property is compulsorily acquired. In considering .

market value disinclination of the vendor to part with . hi P s land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy should be disregarded. The question whet f her aH land has potential value or not, is primarily on o e of fact depending upon its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being t put and proximity to

residential, commercial or in r dustrial areas or institutions.

The existing amenities u like, water, electricity, possibility

of their further ex o tension, whether near about Town is

developin g C or has prospect of development have to be taken into consideration. (Atma Singh and others v. State

g^{of H}h aryana and another (2008) 2 SCC 568). i

31. In Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (Dead) by H

LRs. & Ors . [(2005) 12 SCC 1], the Apex Court held that the best method, as is well-known, would be the amount which a willing purchaser would pay to the owner of the land. In absence of any direct evidence, the court, however, may take recourse to various other known

methods. Evidence admissible therefor inter alia would be judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisitions of lands made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages. Such a judgment and award in the .

absence of any other evidence like deed of sale, repor . t o P f the expert and other relevant evidence would have only evidentiary value. H

32. In Suresh Kumar v. Town Impro f vement Trust, Bhopal [(1989) 2 SCC 329], the t Ap ex o Court has held that while determining the marke r t value of the land acquired, it has to be correctly determined and paid so that there is neither unjust enr o ichme u nt on the part of the acquirer nor undue deprivation on the part of the owner.

33. A C s already discussed, the onus to prove and esta h blish the real market value is always upon the g claimants. Now significantly through his testimony, i

Satpal Singh (PW.1) has also proven on record various H

sale deeds. However, trial Court has taken into account three of them being Ex.PW.1/B, Ex.PW.1/C and Ex.PW.1/D, being prior to the initiation of the acquisition proceedings. These pertain to small chunks of land whereby land admeasuring 0-00-40 HM was sold for

consideration of `100/- per centare; 62 Centare for `5000/- and 0-01-01 HM for `10,000/-. These sale deeds pertain to the year 1997. They pertain to Tikka Rey and Tikka Tatwali. The Court below, by rightly applying . the

principle laid down in Haridwar Develiopment Authorit P y Haridwar Versus Raghubir Singh, (2010) 11 SCC 581, carried out necessary deduction of 25% th f ere uHpon. This was so done in view of the exemplar sale deeds pertaining to small parcel of land. S o ignificantly there is

neither any challenge to the t execution of these sale

deeds or genuineness thereo r f. They pertain to the period

prior to the o comm u encement of the acquisition proceedings. It is also not the case of the parties that these sale C deeds came to be executed only for the

purp h ose o f creating evidence in anticipation that the land g in question would also be acquired. In fact, claimants i

had no inkling of the acquis ition of their land and were H

taken by surprise with the commencement of the acquisition proceedings. Thus, by taking into account the average of these sale deeds, so proven on record, the value turned out to be `9.6 lacs, and by carrying deduction of 25%, the Court below rightly determined the

market value of the entire acquired land to be `7.20 lacs per hectare. It has come in the testimony of the witness examined by the State that the land stood acquired in Tikka Chabbar, Rey, Tatwali, Dhoulpur and Indpur. .

34. Hence the Court below rightly determi . ne P d compensation on the basis of material on record.

35. Noticeably since uniform rate was aHpplied for the entire acquired land, Court below r f ightly did not award any amount for the los s o of income of the agricultural/horticultural produc t e with respect to the acquired land. r

36. The Court be u low, keeping in view the law laid down by the Ape o x Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer, B YD C A, Bagalkot Versus Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahi h b, (2002) 3 SCC 688, has given 10% appreciation for g the years between execution of the sale deeds and i

acquisition of the land. H

37. Hence in the given facts and circumstances, no interference is warranted. It cannot be said that the findings returned by the Courts below are perverse, illegal or erroneous. As such, present appeals as also the

cross-objections stand dismissed, so also pending application(s), if any.

(Sanjay Karol),

Judge. .

June 1, 2016. (Purohit) .P

t o f

ou r

Land Acquisition Collector & Another v. Jatinder Singh

High Court of Himachal Pradesh — Summary of Judgment dated June 1, 2016

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' / State's Contentions

Respondents' / Claimants' Contentions

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Land Acquisition Collector & Another v. Jatinder Singh

Comments