The Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Limited And Another v. Narayan Singh And Others, Himachal Pradesh High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court in this Opinion
Narendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2017) 9 SCC 426	Section 28A — where court allows higher compensation in one award, persons interested under the same notification may seek re-determination on that basis.	Used to justify applying a judicially determined fair compensation (from Hatkoti lead case) to other landowners under the same notification / identically situated persons.
Periyar & Parkeekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (1991) 4 SCC 195	In absence of village sales, neighbouring transactions of similar potentiality are relevant comparators.	Cited among authorities to support use of transactions from neighbouring/local areas where appropriate similarity exists.
Jai Prakash v. Union of India, (1997) 9 SCC 510	Support for comparability principle — use of nearby or similar transactions in determining market value.	Relied upon in the collective list of authorities that allow comparators from comparable areas.
Kanwar Singh v. Union of India, (1998) 8 SCC 136	Principles on comparability of transactions for compensation determination.	Cited to support that awards for similar quality land in other villages may be used as bases if similarity is shown.
Manoj Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1262	Principle regarding use of comparable transactions/awards when assessing compensation.	Included among authorities supporting comparability approach adopted by court to extend Hatkoti rates to other villages where Collector had equated values.
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kheda v. Vasudev Chandrashankar, (1997) 11 SCC 218	Award of the Reference Court relating to the same village or similar land offers a comparable base for compensation.	Cited to reinforce that an award for the same village can be the basis for determining rates for another acquisition for the same purpose.
Dadu Ram v. Land Acquisition Collector, (2016) 2 ILR 636 (HP)	Where purpose of acquisition renders nature/classification irrelevant, a uniform rate for all kinds of land may be awarded.	Cited to support applying a uniform rate for land acquired for the same purpose irrespective of classification.
H.P. Housing Board v. Ram Lal, 2003 (3) Shim L.C. 64	Local authority precedents on valuation methodology (used in context of uniform valuation principles).	Referred as part of authorities supporting uniform valuation when acquisition purpose is identical.
Union of India v. Harinder Pal Singh, (2005) 12 SCC 564	Uniform rate principle where classification is irrelevant for purpose of acquisition.	Used with other authorities to justify a single unit rate for land acquired for same purpose.
Executive Engineer v. Dila Ram, Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 1007	State-level authority on award of uniform rates or valuation approach.	Included among local precedents relied on for valuation principles.
LAC v. Bhoop Ram, 1997 (2) SLC 229	Local precedent on compensation determination principles.	Referenced in the list of authorities about valuation and uniformity.
Smt. Gulabi v. State of H.P., AIR 1998 HP 9	Local authority on valuation/comparability.	Included among supporting authorities for using comparable awards/transactions.
G.M. Northern Railway v. Gulzar Singh & Ors., Latest HLJ 2014 (HP) 775	Local precedent on valuation and compensation-related principles.	Part of the authorities cited for comparability and valuation methodology.
Chandra Bhan (LRs) v. Ghaziabad Development Authority, (2015) 15 SCC 343	Last date of publication / giving of public notice is to be treated as the date of publication for notification under Section 4.	Adopted to conclude that the relevant one-year period for averages should be counted from the last publication date (so last publication = reference date).
Usha Stud & Agricultural Farms (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2013) 4 SCC 210	Authority about treatment of circle rates/publication dates in valuation context.	Used with Chandra Bhan & Surinder Singh Brar to treat last publication as the publication date.
Surinder Singh Brar v. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 403	Treatment of publication dates and related valuation consequences.	Used to reinforce court's conclusion on the relevant date for calculating one-year averages.
Subh Ram v. State of Haryana, (2010) 1 SCC 444	Section 25 — compensation awarded by trial court cannot be less than amount awarded by Collector.	Cited to record that trial court awards must not be less than Collector’s award (in assessing minimums).
Government (NCT of Delhi) v. Ajay Kumar, (2014) 13 SCC 734	Government/Administration cannot be compelled to prescribe circle rates as the sole criterion for market value.	Relied upon by the project proponent to argue that revenue averages/circle rates are not determinative of market value.
Union of India v. Savitri Devi, (2018) 12 SCC 545	Affirms limitations on using circle rates (for stamp duty) as basis for market value.	Invoked by respondent to resist mechanical use of circle/average rates for compensation.
Lal Chand v. Union of India, (2009) 15 SCC 769	Where vendor/vendee evidence is lacking, average of transactions with appropriate deductions may be adopted.	Resorted to by the project proponent to urge appropriate deductions when relying on averages.
Thakur Kuldeep Singh (LRs) v. Union of India, (2010) 3 SCC 794	Circle rate may be one of the factors for market value but not determinative alone.	Cited for the proposition that circle rates can be used as a factor with caution and deductions.
Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board v. Krishan Kumar, (2011) 15 SCC 297	Circle rates may be considered with significant deductions (example: 45%) depending on circumstances.	Used as an authority for making substantial deductions from circle/average rates before fixing compensation.
Jagdish Prasad Verma (LRs) v. State of M.P., (2016) 11 SCC 430	Adopted a middle path between circle rate and actual awarded compensation — courts can moderate extremes.	Referred as supporting precedent for a middle-path approach rather than mechanical adoption of highest or average values.
U.P. State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Shakti Bhatta Udyog, (2004) 8 SCC 70	No notional increase for better quality if uniform rate is mandated by acquisition purpose.	Relied upon to reject landowners' plea for notional increase due to sale-deed land being of inferior quality when uniform rate applied for same purpose.
Chindha Fakira Patil (LRs) v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2011) 10 SCC 787	In certain circumstances highest sale transaction may be preferred over averages to determine compensation.	Cited by landowners; court noted the principle but found facts here different (diverse land categories; uniform rate applicable).
Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab, (2012) 5 SCC 432	Highest bonafide transaction for similar land may serve as the basis for compensation instead of averaging.	Cited; court observed that in the present case the highest exemplar pertained to another village and factual context differed.
State of M.P. v. Kashiram (dead) by LR, (2010) 14 SCC 506	Authority supporting deductions from transaction values when appropriate.	Relied upon by project proponent to justify deductions; court acknowledged usefulness in appropriate cases.
Haridwar Dev. Authority v. Raghubir Singh, (2010) 11 SCC 581	Similar principles on averaging and deductions when fixing compensation.	Cited in context of arguments over deduction and methodology; court weighed it among many precedents.
Kolkata Metropolitan Dev. Authority v. Gobinda Chandra Makal, (2011) 9 SCC 207	Principles on market valuation and use of transaction evidence with deductions.	Part of the corpus of cases invoked for deduction practices when using transaction values.
Executive Engineer (Electrical), KPTCL v. Assistant Commissioner & LAO, (2010) 15 SCC 60	Precedents bearing on valuation, methodology and deductions.	Referred in submissions and considered among authorities on valuation methodology and deduction principles.
Indian Council of Medical Research v. T.N. Sanikop, (2014) 16 SCC 274	Used in submissions to address deduction/valuation principles.	Considered by court as part of larger precedent discussion on valuation practices.
Land Acquisition Officer & Sub-Collector, Gadwal v. Sreelatha Bhoopal (Smt.), (1997) 9 SCC 628	Authority on valuation principles and use of exemplar transactions with deductions.	Relied upon by project proponent in argumentation; considered among authorities permitting deductions for small transactions.
Bijender v. State of Haryana, (2018) 11 SCC 180	Compensation principles including deductions for small plots / extrapolation issues.	Invoked by project proponent to support deduction when exemplar transactions relate to small plots.
Hasanali Khanbhai & Sons v. State of Gujarat, (1995) 5 SCC 422	Principles governing use of exemplar transactions and extrapolation to larger blocks.	Included in list of cases relied upon by project proponent to contend for deductions and caution in extrapolation.
Land Acquisition Officer v. Nookala Rajamallu, (2003) 12 SCC 334	Cases on extrapolation and deduction where exemplar transactions concern small pieces of land.	Part of authorities cited to justify deduction practice; considered in court's overall assessment.
Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (LRs) v. State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789	Approach to deduction where small plots form the exemplar transactions.	Cited as precedent approving deductions for small-plot extrapolation; noted in court's synthesis of authorities.
Nelson Fernandes v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2005) 4 SCC 789 (para 30)	Similar direction regarding valuation and extrapolation deductions.	Part of the corpus explaining need for caution and potential deduction when extrapolating from small plots.
C.R. Nagaraja Shetty (2) v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2009) 11 SCC 75	Authority on valuation methodology and extrapolation considerations.	Referenced during submissions on appropriate deduction methodology.
Himmat Singh v. State of M.P., (2013) 16 SCC 392	Recognises making deductions up to significant percentages (cited paras 34 & 35).	Invoked to show that substantial deductions (e.g., up to 50% in certain contexts) have been approved.
Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (LRs) v. State of Karnataka, (2015) 10 SCC 469	Valuation guidance related to comparability and appropriate deductions.	Included among authorities used to assess deduction necessity when using small-plot transactions.
Bhikulal Kedarmal Goenka (D) By LRs v. State of Maharashtra, 2017 (2) Him. L.R. (SC) 635	State-level SC reporting on valuation principles in the context of land acquisition.	Mentioned among authorities in the broader discussion of valuation and deduction practices.
LAC Parvati Hydro Electric Project v. Jeet Ram, 2018 (1) Shim.L.C. 402	Decision in local context on calculation of compensation of structures and evidence weight (not directly on average values).	Referred by landowners; court held the judgement not directly applicable to pure average-value questions in present appeals.
The Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board v. Smt. Nardu, RFA No. 251 of 2010 (24 Oct 2017)	Local authority where deduction of 25% was made for small exemplar plots for want of comparable evidence.	Quoted by parties; court held facts differ and that decision did not mandate outcome here.
Sukh Dev Singh v. The Land Acquisition Collector Kol Dam, RFA No. 531 of 2012 (24 Mar 2018)	Local High Court decision cited by landowners to claim highest average as basis.	Court found the circumstances and Collector's highest awarded rates differed; held it not applicable to current facts.

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.:— All these appeals and cross-objections arising out of ten different awards passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by Additional District Judge-I and Additional District Judge-II, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reference Court’) are being decided together vide this judgment as common question of facts and law involved in these appeals is to be determined based on the identical/similar evidence led in different bunches of Land Reference Petitions.

2. In these appeals, determination of value of land in Villages Hatkoti, Chamsu, Bharot, Mungranadal and Ghunsa acquired for common purpose, i.e. construction of Sawra Kuddu Hydro Electric Project, is to be adjudicated. These appeals can be divided into three main categories i.e. Lot ‘A’, Lot ‘B’ and Lot ‘C’. These categories, keeping in view the Village and on the basis of notification under Section 4 of the Act and also separate award passed by the Collector can be further classified into sub-categories ‘A-1’, ‘A-2’, ‘A-3’ and ‘A-4’ in Lot ‘A’; ‘B-1’, ‘B-2’ and ‘B-3’ in Lot ‘B’ and ‘C-1’, ‘C-2’ and ‘C-3’ in Lot ‘C’. Classification in tabulated form is referred as under:

Category Sub-category with lead Appeal in Lot in this Court Date of Award of Reference Court (1) Date of Section 4 notification (2) Date of last publication (3) Award of Collector Village Lot ‘A’ A-1 RFA -368/2014 09.05.2014 (1) 06.08.2005 (2) 26.12.2005 (3) Award No. 585, dated 18.07.2007 Hatkoti A-2 RFA-166/16 09.10.2015 A-3 RFA 196/2017 06.01.2016 A-4 RFA-261/2017 26.07.2016 Lot ‘B’ B-1 RFA-461/2015 01.07.2015 (1) July, 2005 (2) 25.10.2005 (3) Award No. 588, dated 24.09.2007 Chamsu B-2 RFA-184/2016 01.09.2015 (1) 30.07.2005 (2) 21.10.2005 (3) Award No. 589, dated 25.09.2007 Bharot B-3 RFA-186/2017 28.06.2016 (1) 26.07.2005 (2) 19.10.2005 (3) Award No. 592, dated 31.03.2008 Mungra nadal Lot ‘C’ C-1 RFA-156/2017 28.06.2016 (1) 01.08.2008 (2) 26.09.2008 (3) Award No. 614, dated 12.07.2010 Mungra nadal C-2 RFA-466/2015 15.05.2015 (1) 01.08.2008 (2) 26.09.2008 (3) Award No. 632, dated 14.06.2011 Ghunsa C-3 C-3A RFA-14/17 01.04.2016 (1) 01.08.2008 (2) 26.09.2008 (3) Award No. 632, dated 14.06.2011 Ghunsa C-3/B RFA-15/17 (1) 24.03.2008 (2) 07.10.2008 (3) Award No. 631, dated 20.05.2011 Chamsu

3. In Lot ‘B’, RFAs No. 368, 402 to 406 of 2014 and 63 to 65, 166 and 167 of 2016, 175, 196 of 2017, 261 and 262 of 2017 and Cross Objections No. 7 of 2015 in RFA No. 368 of 2014, Cross Objections No. 20 of 2015 in RFA No. 402 of 2014, Cross Objections No. 85 of 2017 in RFA No. 405 of 2014, Cross Objections No. 86 of 2017 in RFA No. 406 of 2014 and Cross Objections No. 62 of 2018 in RFA No. 65 of 2015, are arising out of common award No. 585, dated 18 July, 2007, passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Collector’) in pursuance to one and the same notification, dated 6 August, 2005, issued under Section 4 of the Act and last published on 26 December, 2005, with regard to acquisition of land in Village Hatkoti for common purpose. Reference Petitions under Section 18 of the Act, arising out of Award No. 585, have been decided by the Reference Court vide different awards passed on 9 May, 2014; 9 October, 2015; 6 January, 2016 and 26 July, 2016.

4. In Lot ‘A-1’, by way of RFAs No. 368, 402 to 406 of 2014 and 63 to 65 of 2016, Cross Objections No. 7 of 2015 in RFA No. 368 of 2014, Cross Objections No. 20 of 2015 in RFA No. 402 of 2014, Cross Objections No. 85 of 2017 in RFA No. 405 of 2014, Cross Objections No. 86 of 2017 in RFA No. 406 of 2014 and Cross Objections No. 62 of 2018 in RFA No. 65 of 2015, award, dated 9 May, 2014, passed by the Reference Court in Land Reference Petitions No. 53-S/4 of 2013/08, titled Narayan Singh v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited; 54-S/4 of 2013/08, titled Sh. Krishan Chand v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board; 55-S/4 of 2013/08, titled Sh. Sohan Lal v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board; 57-S/4 of 2013/08, titled Sh. Moti Lal v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board; 60-S/4 of 2013/08, titled Sh. Devinder Singh v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board; 61-S/4 of 2013/08, titled Sh. Devinder Singh v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board; 56-S/4 of 2013/08, titled Smt. Sodha Devi v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board; 58-S/4 of 2013/08, titled Smt. Shubh Kanta Sharma Petitioner v. H.P State Electricity Board; 59-S/4 of 2013/08, titled Sh. Devinder Singh v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board; has been assailed.

5. In Lot ‘A-2’, in RFAs No. 166 and 167 of 2016, award, dated 9 October, 2015, passed by the Reference Court in Land Reference Petitions No. RBT-83-R/4 of 2014/08, titled Shamsher Singh Petitioner v. State Of H.P& Others S.; and RBT 30-R/4 of 2014/08, titled Prabhu Dyal v. State of H.P., respectively, has been assailed.

6. In Lot ‘A-3’, in RFAs No. 175 and 196 of 2017, award, dated 6 January, 2016, passed by the Reference Court in Land Reference Petitions No. RBT-28-R/4 of 2015/14, titled Gian Singh v. H.P. State Electricity Board; and RBT-27-R/4 of 2015/10, titled Shiv Dyal v. H.P. State Electricity Board, respectively, has been assailed.

7. In Lot ‘A-4’, in RFAs No. 261 and 262 of 2017, award, dated 26 July, 2016, passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Reference Court’) in Land Reference Petitions No. RBT-37-R/4 of 2014/08, titled Mohan Lal v. State of H.P.; and RBT-38-R/4 of 2014/08, titled Salig Ram Sharma v. State of H.P.. Respectively, has been assailed.

8. Appeals in Lot ‘B’ are arising out of Awards No. 588, 589 and 592, passed by the Collector with respect to Villages Chamsu, Bharot and Mungranadal wherein value of land in these villages has been determined on the basis of Award No. 585 of Village Hatkoti and Reference Court vide awards, dated 1 July, 2015, 1 September, 2015 and 28 June, 2016, has determined the value of acquired land on the basis of Land Reference Petition No. 53-S/4 of 2013/08, titled Narayan Singh v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited (subject matter of RFA No. 368 of 2014). These appeals have been further classified into sub-categories ‘B-1’, ‘B-2’ and ‘B-3’.

9. In Lot ‘B-1’, RFAs No. 461 to 463 of 2015 are arising out of common award No. 588, dated 24 September, 2007, passed by the Collector in pursuance to notification, dated July, 2005 issued under Section 4 of the Act, published lastly on 25 October, 2005, with regard to acquisition of land in Village Chamsu for common purpose, wherein Reference Petitions under Section 18 of the Act have been decided by the Reference Court vide award, dated 1 July, 2015.

10. In Lot ‘B-1’, in RFAs No. 461 to 463 of 2015, award, dated 1 July, 2015, passed by the Reference Court in Land Reference Petitions No. RBT-10-S/4 of 2015/08, titled Inder Pal v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board; Land Reference Petitions No. RBT-11-S/4 of 2015/08, titled Kanwar Singh v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board; and Land Reference Petitions No. RBT-12-S/4 of 2015/08, titled Pratap Singh v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited, respectively, has been assailed.

11. In Lot ‘B-2’, RFAs No. 184 to 200 and 351 of 2016 are arising out of common award No. 589, dated 25 September, 2007, passed by the Collector in pursuance to notification, dated 30 July, 2005, issued under Section 4 of the Act published lastly on 21 October, 2005, with regard to acquisition of land in Village Bharot for common purpose wherein Reference Petitions under Section 18 of the Act have been decided by the Reference Court vide award, dated 1 September, 2015.

12. In Lot ‘B-2’, in RFAs No. 184 to 200 and 351 of 2016, award, dated 1 September, 2015, passed by the Reference Court in Land Reference No. 19-S/4 of 2015/08, titled Jai Lal v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board; Land Reference No. 22-S/4 of 2015/08, titled Bala Nand v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board; Land Reference No. 25-S/4 of 2015/08, titled Vijay Pal v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board; Land Reference No. 26-S/4 of 2015/08, titled Jai Lal v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board; Land Reference No. 27-S/4 of 2015/08, titled Suresha Nand v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board; Land Reference No. 30-S/4 of 2015/08, titled Brahma Nand v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board; Land Reference No. 31-S/4 of 2015/08, titled Devinder Singh v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board; Land Reference No. 32-S/4 of 2015/08, titled Mohan Lal v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board; Land Reference No. 33-S/4 of 2015/08, titled Bala Nand v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board; Land Reference No. 34-S/4 of 2015/08, titled Suresh Kumar v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board; Land Reference No. 35-S/4 of 2015/08, titled Rajinder Singh v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board; Land Reference No. 20-S/4 of 2015/08, titled Sukh Dass v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board; Land Reference No. 21-S/4 of 2015/08, titled Jai Lal v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board; Land Reference No. 23-S/4 of 2015/08, titled Jai Lal v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board; Land Reference No. 28-S/4 of 2015/08, titled Narinder Singh v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board; Land Reference No. 36-S/4 of 2015/08, titled Anil Dulta v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board; Land Reference No. 29-S/4 of 2015/08, titled Bali Ram (now deceased) through LRs v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board; Land Reference No. 24-S/4 of 2015/08, titled Jail Lal v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board; respectively, has been assailed.

13. In Lot ‘B-3’, RFA No. 186 of 2017 is arising out of award No. 592, dated 31 March, 2008, passed by the Collector pursuant to notification, dated 26 July, 2005, issued under Section 4 of the Act, published lastly on 19 October, 2005, with regard to acquisition of land in Village Mungranadal for common purpose, award wherein was passed on 28 June, 2016 in Land Reference No. RBT-45- S/4 of 2015/11, titled Moti Singh (since deceased) through his LRs v. State of H.P..

14. In Lot ‘C’, appeals arising out of Awards No. 614, 631 and 632 passed by the Collector with respect to Villages Mungranadal, Chamsu and Ghunsa are involved wherein, after adding 10%-12% in the value of land determined in Award No. 585 of Village Hatkoti, value of acquired land has been determined by the Collector as in case of Awards No. 614 and 632, notification, dated 1 August, 2008 under Section 4 of the Act was lastly published on 26 September, 2008 in comparison to the date of last publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act, i.e. 26 December, 2005 in Award No. 585 whereas in case of Award No. 631, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 24 March, 2008 and published lastly on 7 October, 2008. In Reference Petitions arising out of Awards No. 614 (Village Mungranadal) and 632 (Village Ghunsa), decided on 28 June, 2016 and 15 May, 2015, Reference Court has determined the compensation by adding 10% in the value of land determined in Land Reference Petition No. 53-S/4 of 2013/08, titled Narayan Singh v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited (subject matter of RFA No. 368 of 2014) whereas in Reference Petitions arising out of Awards No. 631 and 632, deiced on 1 April, 2016, no such enhancement has been granted despite equivalency and proximity in dates of notification under Section 4 of the Act with other cases decided on 28 June, 2016 and 15 May, 2015, arising out of Awards No. 614 and 632. These appeals have been further classified into sub-categories ‘C-1’, ‘C-2’ and ‘C-3’ and in view of different dates of notifications with respect to land of different villages, class C-3 can be further divided into ‘C-3A’ and ‘C-3B’.

15. In Lot ‘C-1’, RFAs No. 156 & 157 of 2017 are arising out of common award No. 614, dated 12 July, 2010, passed by the Collector in pursuance to notification, dated 1 August, 2008, issued under Section 4 of the Act, published lastly on 26 September, 2008 with regard to acquisition of land in Village Mungranadal for common purpose. Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Act in these cases have been decided vide award, dated 28 June, 2016.

16. In Lot ‘C-1’, in RFAs No. 156 and 157 of 2017, award, dated 28 June, 2016, passed by the Reference Court in Land Reference No. RBT-44-S/4 of 2015/12, titled Moti Singh (since deceased) through his LRs v. Principal Secretary (Power); and Land Reference No. RBT-43-S/4 of 2015/12, titled Utra Devi v. Principal Secretary (Power), respectively, has been assailed.

17. In Lot ‘C-2’, RFAs No. 466 and 467 of 2015 are arising out of common award No. 632, dated 14 June, 2011, passed by the Collector in pursuance to notification, dated 1 August, 2008, issued under Section 4 of the Act, published lastly on 26 September, 2008, with regard to acquisition of land in Village Ghunsa for common purpose. Reference Petitions under Section 18 of the Act in these cases were decided vide award, dated 15 May, 2015.

18. In Lot ‘C-2’, in RFAs No. 466 and 467 of 2015, award, dated 15 May, 2015, passed by the Reference Court in Land Reference RBT No. 25-S/4 of 2014/12, titled Vijay Pal Singh v. The Principal Secretary (Power); Land Reference RBT No. 24-S/4 of 2014/12, titled Kanwar Singh v. The Principal Secretary (Power); respectively, has been assailed.

19. In Lot ‘C-3’, RFAs No. 14, 16 and 17 of 2017 are arising out of common award No. 632, dated 14 June, 2011, passed by the Collector in pursuance to notification, dated 1 August, 2008, issued under Section 4 of the Act, published lastly on 26 September, 2008, with regard to acquisition of land in Village Ghunsa for common purpose, whereas RFA No. 15 of 2017 is arising out of award No. 631, dated 20 May, 2011, passed by the Collector in pursuance to notification, dated 24 March, 2008, issued under Section 4 of the Act, lastly published on 7 October, 2008, with regard to acquisition of land in Village Chamsu for common purpose. Reference Petitions under Section 18 of the Act in these cases were decided vide award, dated 1 April, 2016.

20. Appeals, i.e. RFAs No. 14, 16 and 17 of 2017 have been classified as Lot ‘C-3A’, wherein award passed by the Reference Court in Land Reference No. RBT-52-S/4 of 2015/12, titled Ram Lal v. The Principal Secretary (Power); Land Reference No. RBT-41-S/4 of 2015/12, titled Partap Singh v. The Principal Secretary (Power); Land Reference No. RBT-50-S/4 of 2015/12, titled Pratap Singh v. The Principal Secretary (Power), respectively, has been assailed. RFA No. 15 of 2017 has been classified as Lot ‘C-3B’, wherein award passed by the Reference Court in Land Reference No. RBT-42-R/4 of 2015/12, titled Prem Singh v. The Principal Secretary (Power), has been assailed.

21. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to clarify again that all appeals/cross objections in Lot ‘A’ have been preferred by the project proponent/land owners assailing enhancement/claiming further enhancement in above referred Land Reference Petitions decided by the Reference Court arising out of common award No. 585, dated 18 July, 2007, pertaining to acquisition of land in Village Hatkoti, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, for construction of Sawra Kuddu Hydro Electric Project. However, the Reference Court, in its awards, dated 9 October, 2015; 6 January, 2016; and 26 July, 2016, passed in RFA No. 166 of 2016 & connected matter (Lot ‘A-2’), RFA No. 196 of 2017 & connected matter (Lot ‘A-3’) and RFA No. 261 of 2017 & connected matter (Lot ‘A-4’), in para 31, has wrongly stated that in these cases, notification was published through Tehsildar on 9 March, 2006 and has also wrongly referred that the Land Reference Petitions, in these cases, were arising out of Award No. 590, dated 30 January, 2008, passed by the Collector.

22. Similarly, in RFA No. 14 of 2017, it has been wrongly mentioned that these appeals are arising out of Award No. 632, dated 20 May, 2011, passed by the Collector whereas RFAs No. 14, 16 and 17 of 2017 are arising out of Award No. 632, but, passed on 14 June, 2011 and RFA No. 15 of 2017 is arising out of Award No. 631 announced on 20 May, 2011. These findings/observations of the Reference Court are erroneous as well as contrary to the facts and record.

23. As evident from details referred hereinabove, basic award passed by the Collector is Award No. 585, dated 18 July, 2007, which has been considered by the Collector as a parameter for determining value of land of all villages in which land has been acquired for the same purpose, but, issuing different notification under Section 4 of the Act. The said Award No. 585 was adjudicated by the Reference Court in Reference Petition No. 53-S/4 of 2013/08, titled Narayan Singh v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and the appeal arising therefrom is pending consideration in these appeals in RFA No. 368 of 2014.

24. Government of Himachal Pradesh, vide notification, dated 6 August, 2005, issued under Section 4 of the Act, has acquired the land situated in Village Hatkoti, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla for public purpose stated supra. The said notification was published in Rajpatra on 6 August, 2005 and in two daily news papers on 26 August, 2005, and lastly, it was publicized by the Tehsildar, Jubbal in the area concerned on 26 December, 2005. After completing process under the Act, the Collector had announced award No. 585, dated 18 July, 2007 determining the rates of acquired land according to nature and classification. Firstly, Collector, on the basis of transactions with respect to Mauja Hatkoti, assessed average value of land as under:

Sr. No. Classification of Land Rate per sqmt. (Centiare) 1 Kayar Abbal Rs. 1,026=79 2 Kayar Dom Rs. 899=50 3 Kulahu Abbal Rs. 763=73 4 Kulahu Dom Rs. 704=33 5 Bakhal Abbal Rs. 636=40 6 Bakhal Dom Rs. 517=64 7 Gair Mujruha, Banjar Kadeem Rs. 161=23

25. Thereafter, the Collector classified the land under acquisition into three major categories, i.e. (i) irrigated land, (ii) un-irrigated/cultivated land and (iii) uncultivated land. Thereafter, he took the average of two categories, i.e. irrigated and un-irrigated/cultivated land and after making 20% reduction in the said average value, determined value of these two categories of land. So far as uncultivated land is concerned, he did not make any reduction of 20% by stating that land of this category was being acquired for the same purpose, therefore, such reduction was not proper. Accordingly, the Collector determined the value of land of three categories as under:

(i) Irrigated land: Rs. 821.00 (per centiare)

(ii) Un-irrigated/cultivated land: Rs. 509.00 per centiare

(iii) Uncultivated land: Rs. 161.00

26. Land owners-claimants had preferred Reference Petitions under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement, in which Land Reference Petition No. 53-S/4 of 2013/08, titled Narayan Singh v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited, was decided by the Reference Court vide impugned award, dated 9 May, 2014, whereby value of land has been assessed at the enhanced uniform rate to the tune of Rs. 3038 per centiare alongwith statutory benefits. On the basis of this award, the same suit was followed in impugned awards, dated 9 October, 2015; 6 January, 2016 and 26 July, 2016, pertaining to the same Village Hatkoti. In awards passed by the Collector pertaining to appeals of Lot ‘B’, identical value of land was assessed for the land acquired in Villages Chamsu and Bharot. For the land of these villages, the Reference Court has also determined the value of land equivalent to that of Village Hatkoti vide awards, dated 1 July, 2015, 1 September, 2015 and 28 June, 2016. However, for the land acquired in Villages Mungranadal and Ghunsa, subject matter of appeals in Lot ‘C’, the Collector has assessed the value of land giving enhancement of 10% - 12% for the reason that notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued almost after three years. In the cases of Lots ‘C-1’ and ‘C-2’, Reference Court has also awarded compensation on the absis of rate determined for the land of Village Hatkoti in the year 2005, but, with enhancement of 10% vide awards, dated 28 June, 2016 and 15 May, 2016. However, in cases of Lots ‘C-3A’ and ‘C-3B’, no enhancement of 10% has been awarded by the Reference Court and value of land has been assessed on the basis of award passed in Reference Petition No. 53-S/4 of 2013/08, titled Narayan Singh v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (subject matter of RFA No. 368 of 2014).

27. Evidence before the Reference Court was led in one lead case in each set of Reference Petitions. In Lot ‘A-1’, evidence was led in RFA No. 368 of 2014 (i.e. Reference Petition No. 53-S/4 of 2013/08, titled Narayan Singh v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board), wherein thirteen witnesses were examined on behalf of the land owners and two witnesses were examined on behalf of the project proponent. In Lot ‘A-2’, evidence was led in RFA No. 166 of 2016 (i.e. Reference Petition No. RBT-83-R/4 of 2014/08, titled Shamsher Singh Petitioner v. State Of H.P& Others S.). In Lot ‘A-3’, evidence was led in RFA No. 196 of 2017 (i.e. Reference Petition No. RBT-27-R/4 of 2015/10, titled Shiv Dyal v. H.P. State Electricity Board). Similarly, in Lot ‘A-4’, evidence was led in RFA No. 261 of 2017 (i.e. Land Reference Petition No. RBT-37-R/4 of 2014/08, titled Mohan Lal v. State of H.P.).

28. Common Award No. 585 passed by the Collector has been placed on record in Lot ‘A-1’ as Ex. PW-1/D in RFA No. 368 of 2014 and connected matters and also Ex. PW-2/E, Ex. PW-2/L, Ex. PW-9/D, Ex. PW-10/E, Ex. PW-11/E, Ex. PW-12/C and Ex. RW-1/A. It has also been placed on record in Lots ‘A-2’, ‘A-3’ and Lot ‘A-4’ as Ex. PW-1/F in RFA No. 166 of 2016, Ex. PW-1/F in Ex. PW-1/F in RFA No. 196 of 2017 and Ex. PW-1/B in RFA No. 261 of 2017, respectively (for convenience, hereinafter referred to as ‘Award No. 585’).

29. Land owners have relied upon the award in Case No. 1 of 2006, dated 24 March, 2006, passed by the Collector in a case wherein land in Village Hatkoti was acquired for beautification of Sri. Hatkoti Mata Temple at Hatkoti (hereinafter referred to as ‘Award No. 1 of 2006’) placed on record of Lot ‘A-1’ as Ex. PW-1/E (also exhibited as Ex. PW-2/D, Ex. PW-2/M, PW-9/E, PW-10/D, PW-11/D and PW-12/D). Besides placing reliance on sale deeds, one year average from September, 2004 to August, 2005, placed on record as Ex. PW-7/A in RFA No. 368 of 2014 (Lot ‘A-1’) and Ex. PW-1/C in RFA No. 196/2017 (Lot ‘A-2’) and one year average with effect from 1 May, 2006 to 31 May, 2006, placed on record as Ex. PW-7/B in RFA No. 368 of 2014 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ex. PW-7/A’ and ‘Ex. PW-7/B’) has also been relied upon.

30. In Lot ‘A’, project proponent has also placed on record the award No. 585 as Ex. RW-1/A and placed reliance on one year average with effect from 26 December, 2004 to 25 December, 2005 Ex. RW-1/B in RFA No. 368 of 2014 and Ex. RW-1/A in RFAs No. 166 of 2016, 196 of 2017 and 261 of 2017. In RFA No. 261 of 2017, land owners have also placed it on record as Ex. PW-1/C (for convenience, this average hereinafter is to be referred as ‘Ex. RW-1/B’).

31. In Lot ‘B-1’, evidence has been led in one lead case, i.e. Land Reference Petition No. RBT-10-S/4 of 2015/08, titled Inder Pal v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, which is subject matter of RFA No. 461 of 2015. In these cases, sale deeds No. 229/2006 Ex. PW-1/A and 309/2004 Ex. PW-2/B, award No. 1 of 2006 Ex. PW-3/A, averages Ex. PW-4/A and Ex. PW-4/B are the documents, which have also been relied upon in RFA No. 368 of 2014 in Lot ‘A’ as Ex. PW-6/A, Ex. PW-6/B, Ex. PW-1/E, Ex. PW-7/A, Ex. PW-7/B, respectively. Ex. PW-5/D is Award No. 585, dated 18 July, 2007, which is subject matter of RFA No. 368 of 2014 in Lot ‘A’. Ex. PY is an award passed in Reference Petition No. 53-S/4 of 2013/08, titled Narayan Singh v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and Ex. PZ is award passed by the Reference Court in cases arising out of Award No. 590, which is based on the award passed in Reference Petition No. 53-S/4 of 2013/08, titled Narayan Singh v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited, which is under consideration in RFA No. 368 of 2014.

32. The project proponent, in Lot ‘B-1’, has examined two witnesses. RW-1 Mohan Dass had produced the record of impugned award No. 585 passed by the Collector. RW-2 Balbir Chand is the Senior Manager of the project proponent. In examination-in-chief, he has stated that acquired land was of inferior quality and instead of deduction of 20%, deduction of 30% should have been there. However, he has further stated that value of the land has been determined on the basis of award of Village Hatkoti.

33. In Lot ‘B-2’ also, evidence has been led in one lead case, i.e. Land Reference No. 19-S/4 of 2015/08, titled Jai Lal v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, which is under consideration in RFA No. 184 of 2016. In these appeals also, sale deeds No. 229/2006 Ex. PW-1/A, No. 309/2004 Ex. PW-1/B, award No. 1 of 2006 Ex. PW-2/A, average with effect from September, 2004 to August, 2005 Ex. PW-5/A, Average with effect from May, 2006 to April, 2007 Ex. PW-5/B, are the same as has been relied upon in RFA No. 368 of 2014 in Lot ‘A’ as Ex. PW-6/A, Ex. PW-6/B, Ex. PW-1/E, Ex. PW-7/A and Ex. PW-7/B, respectively. Ex. PW-19/D is an award, dated 9 May, 2014 passed in Reference Petition No. 53-S/4 of 2013/08, titled Narayan Singh v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and Ex. PW-19/F is an award passed by the Reference Court on the basis of award Ex. PW-19/D, which is under consideration in RFA No. 368 of 2014. Ex. PW-19/E is Award No. 585 passed by the Collector, which is impugned in RFA No. 368 of 2014.

34. In Lot ‘B-2’, one witness, namely Vidya Singh, Office Kanungo, has been examined by the project proponent as RW-1, who, in his examination-in-chief, has stated that at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act, no sale transaction related to Village Bharot was available and, therefore, compensation was awarded on the basis of Award No. 585, dated 18 July, 2007 related to Village Hatkoti.

35. In Lot ‘B-3’, there is only one case, i.e. Land Reference No. RBT-45-S/4 of 2015/11, titled Moti Singh (since deceased) through his LRs v. State of H.P., which is under consideration in RFA No. 186 of 2017. In this case, Ex. PW-1/B is an average value prepared by Patwari concerned, but, the same is undated, therefore, is not relevant. Ex. PW-2/A, Ex. PW-2/B, Ex. PW-3/B, Ex. PW-3/F are sale deeds No. 12/2005, 13/2005, Award No. 1 of 2006 and average value of land of Village Hatkoti, which are Ex. PW-1/C in RFA No. 166 of 2016, Ex. PW-1/D in RFA No. 166 of 2016, Ex. PW-1/E in RFA No. 368 of 2014 and Ex. PW-7/A in RFA No. 368 of 2014, respectively. Award Ex. PW-3/G is based on the award passed in Land Reference Petition No. 53-S/4 of 2013/08, titled Narayan Singh v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited (subject matter of RFA No. 368 of 2014) Project proponent has examined Vidya Singh as RW-1, who has produced in evidence average value Ex. RW-1/A, which is Ex. RW-1/B in Land Reference Petition No. 53-S/4 of 2013/08, titled Narayan Singh v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited (subject matter of RFA No. 368 of 2014).

36. In Lot ‘C-1’, evidence, in the Reference Court, was led in lead case, i.e. Reference Petition No. RBT-44-S/4 of 2015/12, titled Moti Singh (since deceased) through his LRs v. Principal Secretary (Power), and the appeal arising out of the said Reference Petition in this Court is RFA No. 156 of 2017, titled M.D. HPPCL v. Moti Singh (since deceased) through his LRs. Land owners in these appeals have relied upon average value Ex. PW-1/B, but, the same does not bear any detail with respect to the period during which this average has been calculated, thus, cannot be taken into consideration. PW-2/A and Ex. PW-2/B are sale deeds No. 12/2005 and 13/2005 of Village Hatkoti, which have also been relied upon in appeals in Lot ‘A’ as Ex. PW-1/C and Ex. PW-1/D in RFA No. 166 of 2016. Similarly, Award No. 1 of 2006 Ex. PW-3/B and average Ex. PW-3/F are Ex. PW-1/E and Ex. PW-7/A in RFA No. 368 of 2014 in Lot ‘A’. Award No. 592, dated 31 March, 2008 (Ex. PW-3/H) is an award passed by the Collector with respect to Village Mungranadal, which has been passed on the basis of value of land determined in Award No. 585, subject matter of RFA No. 368 of 2014 in Lot ‘A’. PW-3/G is an award passed in Reference Petition No. 13-R/4 of 2014/09, titled Liaq Ram v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, with respect to Village Bharot, which has been passed on the basis of another award passed by the Reference Court in Reference Petition No. 53-S/4 of 2013/08, titled Narayan Singh v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited, which is under consideration in RFA No. 368 of 2014 in Lot ‘A’. Ex. PW-3/M is impugned award No. 614 passed by the Collector. The project proponent has relied upon average Ex. RW-1/A pertaining to Village Hatkoti, which is the same as has been relied upon as Ex. RW-1/B in RFA No. 368 of 2014.

37. In Lot ‘C-2’, evidence has been led in lead case, Land Reference RBT No. 25-S/4 of 2014/12, titled Vijay Pal v. The Principal Secretary (Power) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, which is subject matter of RFA No. 466 of 2015, titled Managing Director v. Vijay Pal Singh. In these cases also, land owners have relied upon award Ex. PW-1/S, which has been passed by the Reference Court on 2 January, 2015, with respect to Village Jhalta wherein the value of land has been determined on the basis of Reference Petition No. 53-S/4 of 2013/08, titled Narayan Singh v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited, arising out of Award No. 585, which is subject matter of RFA No. 368 of 2014 in Lot ‘A’. Ex. PW-1/B is impugned award No. 632 passed by the Collector. Ex. PW-1/L and Ex. PW-1/M are averages which are Ex. PW-7/A and Ex. PW-7/B in RFA No. 368 of 2014. Ex. PW-1/N is an award passed by the Reference Court in Reference Petition No. 53-S/4 of 2013/08, titled Narayan Singh v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited. In these cases also, project proponent has relied upon average Ex. RW-1/A, which is Ex. RW-1/B in RFA No. 368 of 2014 in Lot ‘A’.

38. In Lots ‘C-1’ and ‘C-2’ also, Vidya Singh, Office Kanungo of project proponent has been examined as RW-1 to rebut the claim of the land owners. In his cross-examination, he has stated that it is correct that as per one year average Ex. RW-1/A (Ex. RW-1/B in RFA No. 368 of 2014), first two sale deeds are closest to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act.

39. In Lot ‘C-3’ (‘C-3A’ and ‘C-3B’), evidence has been led only in Land Reference No. RBT-52-S/4 of 2015/12, titled Ram Lal v. The Principal Secretary (Power), subject matter of RFA No. 14 of 2017. In these appeals, sale deed No. 13/2005 (Ex. PW-1/B), Award No. 1 of 2006 (Ex. PW-1/C) and average value of land of Village Hatkoti (Ex. PW-1/D) are Ex. PW-1/D in RFA No. 166 of 2016, Ex. PW-1/E in RFA No. 368 of 2014 and Ex. PW-7/A in RFA No. 368 of 2014. Award Ex. PW-1/F passed has been passed by the Reference Court on the basis of Land Reference Petition No. 53-S/4 of 2013/08, titled Narayan Singh v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited, subject matter of RFA No. 368 of 2014. Project proponent has again relied upon average value Ex. RW-1/A, which is Ex. RW-1/B in RFA No. 368 of 2014.

40. In these cases, in various Reference Petitions, the land owners have relied upon five sale deeds. Sale deed No. 309, dated 25 September, 2004 of Village Hatkoti has been placed on record in Lot ‘A-1’ as Ex. PW-6/B in RFA No. 368 of 2014. Sale deed No. 365/2004, dated 7 December, 2004/16 December, 2004 of Village Ghunsa; sale deed No. 12/2005, dated 18 January, 2005; and sale deed No. 13/2005, dated 20 January, 2005, of Village Hatkoti have been placed on record as Ex. PW-1/E, Ex. PW-1/C and Ex. PW-1/D, respectively, in Lot ‘A-2’ in RFA No. 166 of 2016. Fifth sale deed No. 229/2006, dated 24 November, 2006, has been placed on record as Ex. PW-6/A (also Ex. PW-12/F) in RFA No. 368 of 2014 and Ex. PW-1/E in RFA No. 261/2017 in Lots ‘A-1’ and ‘A-4’, respectively. For convenience, these sale deeds hereinafter will be referred through their sale deed numbers.

41. As discussed (supra), none of the appeals in all the lots contains the entire evidence individually. However, entire evidence is available in Lot ‘A’. In cases pertaining to Lots ‘B’ and ‘C’, main reliance has been put on Land Reference Petition No. 53-S/4 of 2013/08, titled Narayan Singh v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited, evidence led by parties is also the same to that of cases in Lot ‘A’. Sale deeds No. 12/2005 and 13/2005 have not been placed on record in RFA No. 368 of 2014 whereas in other RFAs No. 166 of 2016 and 261 of 2017, average value Ex. PW-7/A has not been placed on record. In RFA No. 261 of 2017, sale deeds No. 229/2006 and 365/2004 have also been placed on record whereas in RFA No. 368 of 2014, sale deed No. 309/2004 has been placed on record. However, the fact remains that the appeals in Lot ‘A’ are arising out of one notification issued under Section 4 of the Act for acquisition of land for common purpose in the same village, therefore, in the interest of justice, evidence in all these cases of major Lot ‘A’ is being discussed collectively as all the land owners would be entitled for compensation at the rate arrived at in one case, particularly in view of the ratio of law laid down by the apex Court in case titled Narendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2017) 9 SCC 426, wherein it has been held as under:

“6. The matter can be looked into from another angle as well, viz., in the light of the spirit contained in Section 28A of the Act. This provision reads as under:

“28-A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the court. - (1) Wherein an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section II, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under Section 4, subsection (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the court:”

7. It transpires from the bare reading of the aforesaid provision that even in the absence of exemplars and other evidence, higher compensation can be allowed for others whose land was acquired under the same notification.

8. The purpose and objective behind the aforesaid provision is salutary in nature. It is kept in mind that those land owners who are agriculturist in most of the cases, and whose land is acquired for public purpose should get fair compensation. Once a particular rate of compensation is judicially determined, which becomes a fair compensation, benefit thereof is to be given even to those who could not approach the court. It is with this aim the aforesaid provision is incorporated by the Legislature. Once we keep the aforesaid purpose in mind, the mere fact that the compensation which was claimed by some of the villagers was at lesser rate than the compensation which is ultimately determined to be fair compensation, should not be a ground to deny such persons appropriate and fair compensation on the ground that they claimed compensation at a lesser rate. In such cases, strict rule of pleadings are not be made applicable and rendering substantial justice to the parties has to be the paramount consideration. It is to be kept in mind that in the matter of compulsory acquisition of lands by the Government, the villagers whose land gets acquired are not willing parties. It was not their voluntary act to sell of their land. They were compelled to give the land to the State for public purpose. For this purpose, the consideration which is to be paid to them is also not of their choice. On the contrary, as per the scheme of the Act, the rate at which compensation should be paid to the persons divested of their land is determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. Scheme further provides that his determination is subject to judicial scrutiny in the form of reference to the District Judge and appeal to the High Court etc. In order to ensure that the land owners are given proper compensation, the Act provides for ‘fair compensation’. Once such a fair compensation is determined judicially, all land owners whose land was taken away by the same Notification should become the beneficiary thereof. Not only it is an aspect of good governance, failing to do so would also amount to discrimination by giving different treatment to the persons though identically situated. On technical grounds, like the one adopted by the High Court in the impugned judgment, this fair treatment cannot be denied to them.

9. No doubt the judicial system that prevails is based on adversarial form of adjudication. At the same time, recognising the demerits and limitations of adversarial litigation, elements of social context adjudication are brought into the decision making process, particularly, when it comes to administering justice to the marginalised section of the society.”

42. Though, major Lots ‘B’ and ‘C’ of appeals pertain to different villages other than Village Hatkoti, but, therein the Collector itself has equated the land of these villages at par with the land of Village Hatkoti and has determined the value of land in these villages equivalent to that of Village Hatkoti in similar fashion. Further, Reference Court has also decided Reference Petitions of these villages on the basis of award of Reference Court passed in Land Reference Petition No. 53-S/4 of 2013/08, titled Narayan Singh v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited, of Village Hatkoti arising out of Award No. 585, which is under consideration in RFA No. 368 of 2014 of Lot ‘A-1’. So far as evidence led in lead cases in Lots ‘B’ and ‘C’ is concerned, parties are banking upon the evidence led in cases of Lot ‘A’ as evident from succeeding paras.

43. It is also settled law that in absence of sales of the village/area, of which land is under acquisition, transactions relating to acquired land of recent dates or same dates or in the neighbourhood lands that possessed similar potentiality or fertility or other advantageous factors are also relevant piece of evidence. However, for that purpose, nature and potentiality of land in two different villages should be the same for awarding the same rate of compensation in acquisition of land for the same purpose. (See Periyar and Parkeekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (1991) 4 SCC 195; Jai Prakash v. Union of India, (1997) 9 SCC 510; Kanwar Singh v. Union of India, (1998) 8 SCC 136; and Manoj Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1262). As held by the apex Court in case titled Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kheda v. Vasudev Chandrashankar, reported in (1997) 11 SCC 218, the award of the Reference Court relating to the same village of the similar land possessed of same quality of land and potential offers a comparable base for determination of the compensation. Therefore, award passed with respect to land of a village can be basis of awarding same rate or increased/decreased rate of compensation qua the land of another village acquired for the same purpose based on the evidence of similarity or dissimilarity of the land in both villages.

44. As discussed (supra), project proponent as well as Collector has considered the value of land of Villages Chamsu, Bharot, Mungranadal, Ghunsa and other adjoining villages of the same value by assessing same value of the land of these villages. Therefore, evidence led in Lot ‘A’ pertaining to Village Hatkoti can certainly be made basis for determining the value of land in these villages and the land owners of these villages are entitled for the value equivalent to that of Village Hatkoti.

45. From evidence referred supra, it is evident that in all cases under consideration, parties have led and relied upon of the common evidence in various Reference Petitions, which is available in appeals of Lot ‘A’. Further, in all cases of Lots ‘A’ and ‘B’, there is proximity of issuance and publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act as it was issued in July and August, 2005 and last date of publication in these cases was in October and December, 2005. Only in Lot ‘C’, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 1 August, 2008 and published lastly on 26 September, 2008. Therefore, Collector had given enhancement of 10% to 12% to the rate determined in Lot ‘A’ and Reference Court has also followed enhancement in the same manner. For close proximity of date of issuance and last publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act, evidence led in Lots ‘A’ and ‘B’, with reference to time and place is equally relevant to each other. Appeals of Lot ‘C’ are to be decided on the basis of appeals of Lots ‘A’ and ‘B’. Therefore, it would be suffice to consider and discuss entire evidence without reference to appeals in Lot ‘A’ only.

46. The procedure to be adopted by the Collector for working out the estimated rate of land has been provided in Clause 12 of the Financial Commissioners Standing Order No. 28 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Standing Orders’), wherein it has specifically been provided that rates of land will be worked out by the District Collector after taking into account average rate determined from the sale transactions in the revenue estate concerned for a period of one year preceding the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. It is apt to reproduce Clause 12 of the Standing Orders herein:

“12. Collector's rate - how worked out. On receipt of the application, the Collector of the District will furnish data in the shape of rates per acre of the different kinds of land alongwith a preliminary estimate of the value of trees, buildings and other property, if any, for which compensation will have to be paid. The rates of land per acre will be worked out by the District Collector after taking into account average rate per acre determined from the sale transactions in the Revenue Estate concerned for a period of one year preceding the date of notification under section 4 of the Act. It should also indicate whether these average market rates would be appropriate for the land proposed to be acquired. The fact whether the land to be acquired has any special features such as nearness to the abadi and main road which may justify a higher price than the average rate or where there were any special features in the lands sold during the last one year (e.g. sale of small pieces of land for abadi purposes or near a main road) which may justify approval of rates lower than the average rates, should also be indicated. The sale transactions during the year preceding the notification under section 4 of the Act and the average rates proposed should be indicated by the C.R.O. in the proforma given below while submitting the rate to Collector for approval.

(i) Data of sale transactions in Village ________, Tehsil _________, District _________ for the period from _______ to ________

Serial No. No. and date of Registration of the sale Classwise Area Consideration Remarks (ii) Particulars of the sale transactions in the vicinity of the land under acquisition during the period under consideration.(((( Give Sl. Nos. of transactions listed in (i) above. (iii) Average rate per acre for various kinds of land as worked out from the transactions in Sl. No. (i) above. (iv) Average rate per acre for various kinds of land as worked out from the transactions mentioned in Sl. No. (ii) above. (v) Particulars of Award announced, if any, in the village during last 5 years Date of Date Rates Award of per acre notifica for tion various under classes Section of land 4 (vi) Particulars of Court decisions announced, if any, in the village during last 5 years Date of Class Rate decision Date of Rates notifica for per tion acre under allowed Section 4 (vii) State whether the land under acquisition is being used solely for agricultural purposes? If not, indicate details? Class Rule (viii) State whether any part of land has any special features as nearness to abadi or main road to justify higher price? (ix) State whether there were any special features in the land sold during the last one year which may justify approval of rates lower than the average rates? (x) Estimated value of any trees or other structures on the land. (xi) Classwise rates proposed with justification specially for any departure from the average rates indicated in (i) or (ii) above. (xii) Estimated total cost of acquisition.

Kanungos and Patwaris should not be called upon to give their opinion on the market value of the land. The Tehsildar or the Circle Revenue Officer concerned, while making his recommendation in these cases, should personally visit the spot, closely scrutinize the data and ensure all relevant information is supplied in the proforma prescribed for the purpose.”

47. The apex Court in case titled Chandra Bhan (dead) through Legal Representatives v. Ghaziabad Development Authority, reported in (2015) 15 SCC 343, relying upon Usha Stud and Agricultural Farms (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2013) 4 SCC 210 and Surinder Singh Brar v. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 403, has held that the last date of publication and giving of public notice is treated as the date publication of the notification.

48. On combined reading of Standing Orders and exposition of date of publication by the apex Court, last date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act in Lot ‘A’ is 26 December, 2005 in Lot ‘B’ is 19 October, 2005, 21 October, 2005 and 25 October, 2005 and one year period preceding thereto in Lot ‘A’ is from 26 December, 2004 to 26 December, 2005 or at least from December, 2004 to December, 2005 and similarly, the said period in Lot ‘B’ is from October, 2004 to October, 2005. For convenience, relevant period can be considered with effect from October, 2005to December, 2005.

49. It is well settled that at the time of determining market value of land for acquisition, the purpose for which the land is acquired is relevant and not nature and classification of land and where nature and classification of the land has no relevance for purpose of acquisition, the market value of the land is to be determined as a single unit irrespective of nature and classification of the land. In such a case, uniform rate to all kinds of land under acquisition as a single unit irrespective of their nature and classification is to be awarded (See Dadu Ram v. Land Acquisition Collector, (2016) 2 ILR 636 (HP); H.P. Housing Board v. Ram Lal, 2003 (3) Shim L.C. 64; Union of India v. Harinder Pal Singh, (2005) 12 SCC 564; Executive Engineer v. Dila Ram, Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 1007; LAC v. Bhoop Ram, 1997 (2) SLC 229; Smt. Gulabi and v. State of H.P., AIR 1998 HP 9; and G.M Northern Railway v. Gulzar Singh & Ors. S, Latest HLJ 2014 (HP) 775.

50. As per Section 25 of the Act, the amount of compensation awarded by the trial Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act. (Also see - Subh Ram v. State of Haryana, (2010) 1 SCC 444)

51. In RFA No. 196 of 2017 (in Lot ‘A-3’), award dated 9 October, 2015, passed in Land Reference Petition No. RBT-29-R/4 of 14/09 and award dated 9 May, 2014, passed in Land Reference Petition No. 53-S/4 of 2013/08 have been relied upon as Ex. PW-1/B and Ex. PW-1/E, respectively. In RFA No. 466 of 2015 (in Lot ‘C-2’), award, dated 2 January, 2015 (Ex. PW-1/S) passed in Land Reference No. 98-S/4 of 2014/09; in RFA No. 461 of 2015 (in Lot ‘B-1’), award, dated 2 January, 2015 (Ex. PZ) in Land Reference No. 57-S/4 of 2014/09; in RFA No. 186 of 2017 (in Lot ‘B-3’) and RFA No. 14 of 2017 (in Lot ‘C-3’), award, dated 9 October, 2015 (Ex. PW-3/G) in Land Reference No. 13-R/4 of 2014/09, have been relied upon by the land owners. It is apt to record herein that the award passed in Land Reference Petition No. 53-S/4 of 2013/08 is impugned herein in RFA No. 368 of 2014 (Lot ‘A’) whereas award in Land Reference Petition No. RBT-29-R/4 of 14/09 has been passed on the basis of award in Land Reference Petition No. 53-S/4 of 2013/08. Therefore, these awards are also not relevant for determining value of land in present appeals.

52. Vide award No. 1 of 2006, dated 24 March, 2006 (Ex. PW-1/E in RFA No. 368 of 2014), land in Village Hatkoti was acquired for beautification of Sri. Hatkoti Mata Temple at Hatkoti by initiating the process of acquisition after issuance of notification, dated 8 June, 2005, under Section 4 of the Act, last publication whereof was made in the month of August, 2005. In the said award, the Collector had determined the value of the land in Village Hatkoti on the basis of nature and classification as under:

Name of Revenue Estate Classification of land Rate per Centiyar Hatkoti 1. Kiar Awal 2. Gair Mumkin Rasta 3. Gair Mumkin Kuhal Rs. 1627/- Rs. 256/- Rs. 256/-

53. In present case, last publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act was made in October/December, 2005. In award No. 1 of 2006 (Ex. PW-1/E), the Collector has awarded highest amount for kiar awal at the rate of Rs. 1627 per centiare. Value of land increased with passage of time, but, strangely, the Collector, for the land acquired in the same village during the subsequent period, has awarded highest value of irrigated cultivable land (kiar awal) at the rate of Rs. 821 per centiare. Though, award Ex. PW-1/E is close in proximity in time and location, but, the said award can also not be made basis for determining the value of land in question for the reason that the said award has not attained finality and is also stated to be now pending adjudication in time barred appeals filed by the project proponent in this Court wherein, as informed, enhancement made at the rate of Rs. 3151/- per centiare, awarded by the Reference Court in the Land Reference Petitions preferred by the land owners therein, has been assailed and one such award, dated 2 June, 2015, passed in Land Reference Petition No. RBT-52-R/4 of 2013/06 by learned Additional District Judge (II) Shimla is pending adjudication in this High Court in CMP (M) No. 866 of 2018 in RFAST No. 11012 of 2018, titled State v. Krishan Chand.

54. Value of land on the basis of one year average for the period with effect from May, 2006 to 31 May, 2007 has been placed on record as Ex. PW-7/B. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued in July and August, 2005, last publicity whereof was made in October and December, 2005. This average value cannot be taken into consideration as it pertains to the period subsequent to the issuance and last publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act.

55. One year average (Ex. PW-7/A) pertains to the time period with effect from September, 2004 to 31 August, 2005, wherein, on the basis of two sale deeds, mutation whereof was attested vide mutations No. 153 and 154, dated 29 January, 2005, average value of land per centiare based on nature and classification has been assessed as under:

Kiar Awal Kiar Doyam Kalahu Awal Kalahu Doyam Vaakhal Awal Vaakhal Doyam Banjar Kadim and Banjar Jadeed 4809.08 4212.91 3577.00 2503.90 2980.83 2424.41 755.14

56. On perusal of award No. 585, dated 18 July, 2007, (Ex. PW-1/D in RFA No. 368 of 2014) passed by the Collector and the average value Ex. PW-7/A and also average value Ex. RW-1/B, it is evident that the sale deed No. 12/2005, dated 18 January, 2005 and sale deed No. 13/2005, dated 20 January, 2005, relied upon for evaluating value of land in Ex. PW-7/A, are the same sale deeds which have been taken into consideration by the Collector for assessing value of land in Award No. 585 and relied upon for calculating the value of land in Ex. RW-1/B, but, alongwith another sale deed No. 309/2004, dated 25 September, 2004. Though, the date and number of the sale deed taken into consideration at the time of calculating the value of the land in Ex. PW-7/A has not been mentioned, but, only details of land and consideration thereof alongwith numbers of mutation 153 and 154, dated 29 January, 2005 have been mentioned. However, in award No. 585 and average value Ex. RW-1/B, number of sale deeds, details of the land and consideration involved therein alongwith mutation Nos. 153 and 154, dated 29 January, 2005, has been mentioned. It is evident from Award No. 585 that sale deed No. 12/2005, dated 18 January, 2005 and sale deed No. 13/2005, dated 20 January, 2005 were executed with respect to area of 0-00-65 hectares and 0-01-78 hectares, respectively, wherein Banjar Kadim land in Village Hatkoti was sold for Rs. 45,500/- and Rs. 1,38,000/-, respectively, whereas in sale deed No. 309/2004, dated 25 September, 2004, executed with respect to area of kiar awal, land measuring 0-01-82 hectares was sold for Rs. 40,000/- in Village Hatkoti. Mutation No. 172 with respect to this sale deed was attested on 9 November, 2005. These three sale deeds No. 309/2004, 12/2005 and 13/2005 are also on record as Ex. PW-6/B in RFA No. 368 of 2014, Ex. PW-1/C and Ex. PW-1/D in RFA No. 166 of 2016.

57. Average value in Ex. PW-7/A has been prepared on the basis of sale deeds No. 12 and 13 of 2005. Value of land in Award No. 585 has been assessed on the basis of aforesaid two sale deeds No. 12 and 13 of 2005 and third sale deed No. 309 of 2004, referred hereinabove.

58. Average value Ex. RW-1/B also pertains to the period with effect from 26 December, 2004 to 25 December, 2005, wherein also, aforesaid two sale deeds No. 12 and 13 of 2005 have been taken into consideration alongwith third sale deed No. 309 of 2004, like Award No. 585.

59. In one year average Ex. RW-1/B, value of the land per centiare determined is the same as in Award No. 585 (Ex. PW-1/D), which is as under:

Kiar Awal Kiar Doyam Kalahu Awal Kalahu Doyam Vaakhal Awal Doyam Gair Majrua Dhaank 1026.79 899.50 763.73 774.33 636.44 517.64 161.23

60. Out of the sale deeds taken into consideration by the Collector, there are only two sale deeds No. 12 and 13 of 2005, dated 18 January, 2005 and 20 January, 2005, mutation with respect to which was attested on 29 January, 2005 vide mutation Nos. 153 and 154, are within twelve months/a year prior to notification under Section 4 of the Act, whereas third sale deed No. 309/2004, taken into consideration at the time of determining the value by the Collector in Award No. 585 as well as in average value Ex. RW-1/B determined by the revenue authority, was executed on 25 September, 2004. One year prior to notification under Section 4 of the Act starts either with effect from 26 December, 2004 or 21 October, 2004, as discussed supra, at the most, relevant period reckons from October, 2004 to December, 2004, and, therefore, for determining value of land, transactions during that period, if available, are to be given priority for consideration. In average Ex. RW-1/B, though, period for calculating average has been taken as 26 December, 2004 to 25 December, 2005, but, sale deed No. 309/2004 has also been considered despite the fact that the same has not been executed during relevant period under consideration, but, beyond that period, i.e. on 25 September, 2004. It appears that the Collector and the revenue authority has erroneously considered the said sale deed within period of one year from publication on the basis of date of attestation of mutation of the said sale deed, which was attested vide mutation No. 172 on 9 November, 2005.

61. Attestation of mutation is not the date of transaction taking place, but, it is only for updating the revenue entries on the basis of transaction already taken place. Therefore, the Collector has acted in violation of the Standing Orders as well as adopted procedure for determining the average value of the land on the basis of Ex. RW-1/B because keeping in view date of last publication, in present case, as per Financial Commissioners Standing Order No. 28, the Collector had to take into consideration the sale transactions taken place during the period with effect from 26 December, 2004 to 25 December, 2005 and sale deed No. 309/2004 does not fall even in extended period from October, 2004 to December, 2005, as this sale deed No. 309/2004, taken into consideration by him, was executed on 25 September, 2004.

62. Average value Ex. RW-1/A has been prepared by the Patwari of the office of HPSEB, i.e. Collector, and has been countersigned by concerned Kanungo as well as Naib Tehsildar wherein average value of land has been calculated by converting the same in terms of land revenue whereby value of one paisa of land revenue has been calculated as 6385.71 and thereafter, it has been applied for calculating the value of land on the basis of Parta Kisamwar, i.e. value of land recorded in register of kisamwar according to its classification. However, at the time of calculating the value of one paisa land revenue, sale deed No. 309/2004, dated 25 September, 2004, as discussed in detail (supra), has been taken into consideration despite the fact that the said average value has been stated to be for the period with effect from 26 December, 2004 to 25 December, 2005 and further, at the time of calculating the value in terms of land revenue, sale deeds pertaining to different kinds of land, i.e. banjar kadeem and kiar awal, executed for anonymous purpose, have been taken into consideration on the same footings. Further, it has been ignored that the market value of land, as prescribed in the Standing Orders, is not to be considered only on the basis of average value of preceding one year from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act, but, such average value is one of the number of factors, as detailed (supra) in Clause 12 of the Standing Orders.

63. On exclusion of sale deed No. 309/2004 from Ex. RW-1/A, value of land revenue for sale deeds No. 12/2005 and 13/2005 would be 0.06 paisa and value of one paisa would be almost 30583, which is 4.7 points higher than the value of one paisa determined in Ex. RW-1/A. After applying the said factor of 4.7 to the value calculated in Ex. RW-1/A, highest value of the land will be Rs. 4914/- per centiare and the lowest value will be Rs. 772/- per centiare, which is near to the value determined in average value Ex. PW-7/A. However, again, keeping in view the parameters provided in the Standing Orders, the average value calculated in Ex. PW-7/A also cannot be made basis for determining the market value of land under acquisition.

64. Apart from the parameters in Standing Orders, average value in Ex. PW-7/A cannot be taken into consideration for the reason that the said average value pertains to the period with effect from 1 September, 2004 to 1 August, 2005 whereas the relevant period would have been with effect from 26 December, 2004 to 25 December, 2005. This average value, though, stated to have been prepared in compliance to order passed by the Tehsildar, but, has been prepared and signed by the Patwari concerned only. Unlike Ex. RW-1/A, neither Kanungo nor Tehsildar has countersigned the same. In this average also, instead of date of execution of sale deed, date of attestation of mutation has been taken into consideration at the time of giving reference of relevant sale deeds for the reason that though this average is claimed to be for the period with effect from September, 2004 to 31 August, 2005, but, sale deed No. 309/2004, executed on 25 September, 2004, has not been taken into consideration as it is attested on 9 November, 2005 and sale deeds No. 12/2005 and 13/2005, wherein mutations No. 153 and 154 were attested in January, 2005, have been taken into consideration. It appears that in order to avoid inclusion of sale deed No. 309/2004, which has also been placed on record by the land owners as Ex. PW-6/B in RFA No. 368 of 2014, the concerned Patwari had taken the relevant period with effect from September, 2004 to 31 August, 2005 as the mutation of sale deed No. 309/2004 was attested in November, 2005.

65. As submitted on behalf of the land owners, calculation of market value on the basis of average in Ex. PW-7/A and Ex. RW-1/A is to be made as under:

“First of all, the total area is to be taken, then the same is to be multiplied by the factor of land of the sale deed multiplied by hundred. As in the present case, the sale deed is of Banjar Kadeem Land measuring 00-01-78 hectares = 178 per centiare, the same is to be multiplied by the factor of Banjar Kadeem i.e. 0.19 × 100.

178 × 0.19 × 100 = 3382. The total 3382 is called as Ashiyan. Now to workout the value of the land, the value of the land is to be multiplied by the relevant factor of Banjar Kadeem into hundred divided by Ashiyan.

1,38,000/- × 0.19 × 100 = Rs. 775.28 per centiare/3382

Since the land acquired is of Kiar Awal category, therefore, to work out the exact value of the land by applying the same method as has been done by the Land Acquisition Collector in Exhibit RW-1/B and by Patwari in Exhibit PW-7/A, the value of the land as acquired of the land owners would be calculated in the following manner:

1,38,000/- × 1.21 × 100 = Rs. 4937.31 per centiare”/3382

66. The value of land arrived at by making calculations in aforesaid manner also does not appear to be correct as it is based on the basis of only one sale deed and it is again giving fourth average value of the land.

67. Standing Orders provide that Kanungo and Patwari should not be called upon to give their opinion on market value of land and Tehsildar/Circle Revenue Officer concerned should personally visit the spot, closely scrutinize the data and ensure that all relevant information is supplied in the proforma prescribed for the purpose, before making his recommendation. Ex. PW-7/A prepared by the Patwari is only an average value and not the market value determined by the Collector, Tehsildar/Circle Revenue Officer concerned. Status of Ex. RW-1/A is also the same. In Ex. RW-1/A, average has been calculated on the basis of land revenue whereas in Ex. PW-7/A, the average has been calculated on the basis of amount of consideration in sale deeds under consideration. There is no explanation either on the part of the Collector or on the part of the land owners or the Patwari concerned so as to justify the basis adopted in calculating the average value in these documents. Value of land in Ex. PW-7/A or Ex. RW-1/B, at the most, can be considered equivalent to circle rate. Therefore, market value of acquired land cannot be determined only on the basis of Ex. PW-7/A or Ex. RW-1/B, however, these documents may be one of the factors for determining the same.

68. Sale deed No. 229/2006, dated 24 November, 2006 (Ex. PW-6/A and Ex. PW-12/F in RFA No. 368 of 2014 and Ex. PW-1/E in RFA No. 261 of 2017) pertains to the land situated in Revenue Sub-sector Chanderpur and in the said transaction, land measuring 0-01-56 hectares was sold for Rs. 3,00,000/- only giving value of land at the rate of Rs. 1923/- per centiare. But, this sale deed is not only related to different village, which is not in reference in any appeal either in Lot ‘A’ or Lots ‘B’ and ‘C’, but, has also been executed after issuance and also last publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act and as sale deed of concerned village(s) executed during relevant period are also available, thus, it cannot be taken into consideration.

69. Sale deed No. 309/2004 (Ex. PW-6/B in RFA No. 368 of 2014) was registered on 25 September, 2004, wherein land measuring 0-01-82 hectares was sold for Rs. 40,000/- giving value of land at the rate of Rs. 182/- per centiare. Last publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act is 26 December, 2005 and even if last publication is taken as 21 October, 2005, this sale deed is also beyond twelve months preceding last publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, this sale deed No. 309/2004 may have been relevant in absence of exemplar transaction during one year preceding date of notification under Section 4 of the Act.

70. There are only three sale deeds No. 12/2005, 13/2005 and 309/2004 pertaining to Village Hatkoti on record. As already discussed, sale deed No. 309/2004 was executed prior to twelve months preceding the notification under Section 4 of the Act. Then, only two sale deeds No. 12/2005 and 13/2005 remain for consideration. Sale deed No. 13/2005 is highest in value giving value of land at the rate of Rs. 775.28 per centiare, but, the said value is below the highest value determined by the Collector in Award No. 585. Average of these two sale deeds gives value of land at the rate of Rs. 755.14 per centiare, which is again lesser than the highest rate awarded by the Collector. Therefore, these sale deeds, in either manner, cannot be made basis for determination of value of the land.

71. Even if, third sale deed No. 309/2004 pertaining to the same Village Hatkoti, ignoring the fact that the same was executed beyond the period of twelve months preceding the notification under Section 4 of the Act, is taken into consideration, average value of the land considering these three sale deeds becomes Rs. 525/- per centiare, which is again less than the highest value of land determined in Award No. 585. However, it is a fact that sale deeds No. 12/2005 and 13/2005 pertain to land of the quality banjar kadeem, whereas land under acquisition involves the land of different categories ranging from banjar kadeem to kiar awal, as has also been reflected in Award No. 585. Therefore, the average value on the basis of these sale deeds may be taken as one of the factors for determining the value of land by applying the procedure provided under the Act as well as the Standing Orders. For that purpose, average value Ex. PW-7/A and/or Ex. RW-1/B may have some relevance.

72. In sale deed No. 365/2004 (Ex. PW-1/E in RFA No. 166 of 2016), land measuring 0-00-38 hectares was sold on 7 December, 2004 for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- in Village Ghunsa, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, which gives the value of land at the rate of Rs. 2631.57 per centiare. Taking relevant preceding one year from October, 2005, this sale deed is in proximity with time. Otherwise also, sale deed was executed on 7 December, 2004 whereas date of last publication is 26 December, 2005 and difference in gap from 25 December is insignificant. But, this sale deed is not in location of Village Hatkoti as it pertains to a different Village Ghunsa. However, land of Village Ghunsa has also been acquired for the same purpose in the year 2008 and appeals arising out of that acquisition are in Lot ‘C’ wherein also, value of land for the year 2005 has been evaluated at par with that of Village Hatkoti and for acquisition of land in the year 2008, enhanced value of land, by adding 12% of the value of Village Hatkoti determined in the year 2005, has been determined. Therefore, this sale deed, being proximate in time and equivalent in value of land of both villages, is a relevant exemplar transaction, particularly when, as discussed supra, sale deeds No. 12/2005, 13/2005 and 309/2004 cannot be considered as value on the basis of those sale deeds either individually or collectively by taking average is lesser than the rate awarded by the Collector.

73. Section 23 of the Act provides for determination of compensation on the basis of market value of land and not on the basis of average value or circle rate of the land as average rate/circle rate may not depict the fair and just market value of the land under acquisition. The apex Court, though, as discussed hereinabove, sometimes has taken into consideration the circle rate, but, in absence of any other relevant evidence available on record. However, in such cases, the value of land has not been determined exactly as in circle rate, but, after making deduction therein ranging upto 45%.

74. As evidenced hereinabove, on the basis of sale deeds No. 12/2005 and 13/2005, lowest and highest value of the land, adopting either method, i.e. method depicted in Ex. RW-1/A or in Ex. PW-7/A, is almost the same, i.e. Rs. 772/- per centiare and Rs. 4914/- per centiare in Ex. RW-1/B and Rs. 755.14 per centiare and Rs. 4809/- per centiare in Ex. PW-7/A. Reference Court has determined the value of land after taking mean of average value of various kinds of land calculated in Ex. PW-7/A and in my opinion, has committed a mistake as average of average value, that too, calculated on the basis of transaction of small piece of land cannot be fair and just market value of the land under acquisition, particularly when purpose of transaction in the sale deed has not been disclosed. It is not a case where transactions of different qualities of land are available and are being considered for taking average thereof.

75. Further, plea of land owners to consider the highest value, i.e. Rs. 4809/- per centiare calculated in Ex. PW-7/A as market value of the land, is also not justifiable for another reason also as the said value has been arrived at on the basis of sale deeds pertaining to small chunk of land ranging from one biswa to four biswa. Further, purpose of purchase of land is neither disclosed by the Collector or Patwari concerned or in sale deeds nor has been considered by the concerned authority at the time of determining the average value. Therefore, in arriving at the average value either in Ex. PW-7/A or in Ex. RW-1/B, complete application of judicious mind is missing or parameters required to be taken into consideration as also provided in Standing Orders have been deliberately ignored. The highest value of Rs. 4809/- per centiare is not based on actual transaction of land, but, on the basis of proportionate deemed rate on the basis of sale deed of small chunk of land without taking into consideration the similarity of nature and potential of the land involved in the sale deed under comparison, much less the purpose of the sale. It is not highest value in exemplar transaction, but, highest value in average. Neither average value nor circle rate arrived at without any survey and without application of expert mind considering all relevant factors can be equated with just and fair market value of the land.

76. Land owners/claimants and project proponent are banking upon respective one year average value, i.e. Ex. PW-7/A and Ex. RW-1/B, for determination of value of land. As is apparent from the evidence discussed supra, apart from average value calculated on the basis of Ex. PW-7/A and Ex. RW-1/B, there is no exemplar sale transaction or award on record for taking into consideration for determining the value of land in question except sale deed No. 365/2004, referred (supra).

77. Learned counsel for the project proponent, relying upon the case titled Government (NCT of Delhi) v. Ajay Kumar, reported in (2014) 13 SCC 734, wherein it has been held that Government/Administration cannot be compelled to prescribe circle rates as criterion for fixing market value or for determination of the compensation, and also pronouncement of the apex Court in case titled Union Of India (S) v. Savitri Devi & Anr. (S), reported in (2018) 12 SCC 545, wherein, relying upon Lal Chand v. Union of India, reported in (2009) 15 SCC 769, and Ajay Kumar's case (supra), it has been held that circle rates for purpose of stamp duty could not have been made the basis for determining the value, has submitted that in present case also, average value determined by revenue authority in Ex. PW-7/A cannot be made basis for evaluating the compensation for the land under acquisition.

78. The objection of learned counsel for the project proponent that average Ex. PW-7/A cannot be made basis for determining value of land under acquisition is not substantiated mainly for three reasons. Firstly, it is not a circle rate prepared by revenue department for the purpose of calculating stamp duty but is an exercise undertaken in consonance with Standing Orders for determining average value of land for acquisition. Secondly, project proponent itself is relying upon similar average Ex. RW-1/B. Thirdly, the average is based on sale deeds pertaining to relevant time having proximity in location. But, at the same time, this average value cannot be sole basis for determining market value of land, particularly, when there is one other exemplar transaction, i.e. sale deed No. 365/2004, having proximity so as to becoming relevant exemplar transaction.

79. It would be relevant to refer certain pronouncements of the apex Court wherein, for circumstances in those cases, circle rate has been taken into consideration for determining the value of land under acquisition, but, after making appropriate deduction.

80. In Thakur Kuldeep Singh (dead) through LRs v. Union of India, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 794, it has been made clear by the apex Court that the market value of acquired land cannot be fixed merely on the basis of circle rate, which implied that circle rate can also be one of the factors for determining the market value of the acquired land.

81. Similarly, in Haryana State Agricultural Market Board v. Krishan Kumar, reported in (2011) 15 SCC 297, while observing that normally, it is not safe to proceed to determine the value of land on the basis of circle rates or Collector's rates as they are broad assessments which may or may not be based on proper scientific survey and verification, circle rates relied upon by the parties in evidence have been considered for determining the value of land after making 45% deduction keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case.

82. Also, in Jagdish Prasad Verma (dead) by LRs v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2016) 11 SCC 430, the apex Court, after taking into consideration the fact that amount of compensation awarded was on much lesser side in comparison to the circle rate, had enhanced the rate per square feet. But, in this case also, highest of circle rate was not made basis, rather, middle path was adopted by the Court.

83. Therefore, in view of the fact that the only one exemplar sale deed No. 365/2004 pertains to another village and also that both the parties have relied upon the average calculated by the revenue authority, which is also not exactly a circle rate calculated for purpose of stamp value, average value of land can also be taken into consideration as a relevant factor for calculating market value, but, with appropriate deduction in the given facts and circumstance of the case.

84. Relying upon the pronouncement of the apex Court in case titled U.P. State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Shakti Bhatta Udyog, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 70, learned counsel for the land owners/claimants have canvassed that land owners are entitled for notional increase for better quality of land as the land involved in sale deeds No. 12/2005 and 13/2005 is of inferior quality. Plea of land owners is not sustainable as uniform rate for all kinds of land is being awarded on account of common purpose for which land has been acquired.

85. Further reliance has been placed upon apex Court judgment in case titled Chindha Fakira Patil (dead) through LRs v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, reported in (2011) 10 SCC 787, wherein after considering previous pronouncements of the apex Court in M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur v. Collector of Madras, (1969) 1 MLJ 45 (SC); State of Punjab v. Hans Raj, (1994) 5 SCC 734; Anjani Molu Dessai v. State of Goa, (2010) 13 SCC 710, instead of awarding compensation on the basis of average sale price of transactions, sale deeds representing the highest value were preferred for awarding the compensation.

86. Judgment of the apex Court in case titled Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered) Faridkot v. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 5 SCC 432, has also been relied upon in support of the claim for highest price arrived at in Ex. PW-7/A.

87. No doubt, in above referred pronouncements in U.P. State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd., Chindha Fakira Patil, Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered) Faridkot's cases (supra), the sale deeds having the highest value were taken into consideration by the apex Court, but, in present cases, sale deed No. 365/2004 is depicting highest value, i.e. Rs. 2631.57 per centiare.

88. Further, in U.P. State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd.'s case (supra), the higher rate of market value of the land was fixed on the basis of proved superiority of the land in question, both in location and quality, whereas, in present appeals, different kind of land is involved and when uniform rate is to be determined for a land to be acquired for common purpose, the value of land cannot be determined as calculated on the basis of nature and classification of the land.

89. In Chindha Fakira Patil's case (supra), the average sale price of transactions was discarded for the reason that the average sale price of the transactions relied upon by the respondent therein was far less than the price for which land was sold in the exemplar sale deed relied upon by the claimants.

90. In Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered) Faridkot's case (supra), the highest value fetched by the similar land in the locality in a bonafide transaction was made basis for awarding compensation with the observation that it is not desirable to take an average of various sale deeds placed before the authority/Court for fixing fair compensation. In this case also, the highest value of sale deed out of the sale deeds pertaining to different transactions relied upon on behalf of the Government was preferred.

91. Judgment passed by this Court in RFA No. 531 of 2012, titled Sukh Dev Singh v. The Land Acquisition Collector Kol Dam, decided on 24 March, 2018, has been referred for claiming highest rate of Rs. 4809.08 per centiare on the basis of average value Ex. PW-7/A.

92. Average value arrived at in Ex. PW-7/A is not the highest value awarded by the Collector. The Collector has awarded the highest value of land at the rate of Rs. 821/- per centiare in present case and highest average value is also Rs. 1026/- per centiare, which is not acceptable to the land owners/claimants whereas in RFA No. 531 of 2012, highest rate awarded by the Collector was made basis for awarding the compensation. Hence, the said judgment is not applicable in present case.

93. In present case, as per relevant sale deeds of village Hatkoti, as relied upon by the Collector, the value of land would be Rs. 755.14 per centiare, which again will be giving erroneous value for the reason that the land under acquisition is not of only one category, i.e. banjar kadeem, as involved in those sale deeds, but, varies from banjar kadeem to kiar awal. In view of procedure to be adopted, provided under the Standing Orders and also for the reason that value of land cannot be determined solely on the basis of sale deeds, considered by the Collector in its award ignoring other factors. Further, value of land on the basis of these sale deeds would be less than highest value awarded by the Collector. Therefore, on the basis of plea for awarding compensation on the basis of highest value of sale deed, value of land, as per sale deed No. 365/2004, becomes Rs. 2631.57 per centiare.

94. Reliance has been placed by the project proponent on the judgment of the apex Court in case titled Lal Chand v. Union of India, reported in (2009) 15 SCC 769, wherein, in absence of evidence of vendors and vendees of documents related to sale instances, average of these transactions with appropriate deductions towards development factor has been taken into consideration.

95. Learned counsel for the project proponent has relied upon Lal Chand's case (supra); State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kashiram (dead) by LR, reported in (2010) 14 SCC 506; Haridwar Development Authority v. Raghubir Singh, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 581; Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority v. Gobinda Chandra Makal, reported in (2011) 9 SCC 207; Executive Engineer (Electrical), Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (earlier Karnataka Electricity Board) v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag, reported in (2010) 15 SCC 60; and Indian Council of Medical Research v. T.N. Sanikop, reported in (2014) 16 SCC 274, to insist deduction from the highest value of the land on account of development charges.

96. Reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel for the project proponent on the pronouncement of the apex Court in cases titled Land Acquisition Officer & Sub-Collector, Gadwal v. Sreelatha Bhoopal (Smt) reported in (1997) 9 SCC 628; Haryana State Agricultural Market Board's case (supra) and Bijender v. State of Haryana, reported in (2018) 11 SCC 180, to substantiate the plea that deduction from the value arrived at on the basis of transactions of smaller plots is necessary for determining the actual value of large block of land.

97. Relying upon the pronouncements in cases titled Hasanali Khanbhai & Sons v. State of Gujarat, reported in (1995) 5 SCC 422; Land Acquisition Officer v. Nookala Rajamallu, reported in (2003) 12 SCC 334; Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (dead) by LRs v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2005) 4 SCC 789 (para 31); Nelson Fernandes v. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2005) 4 SCC 789 (para 30); C.R. Nagaraja Shetty (2) v. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2009) 11 SCC 75 (para 15); Himmat Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2013) 16 SCC 392 (paras No. 34 & 35); Land Acquisition Collector v. Jeet Ram, reported in Latest HLJ 2014 (HP) Suppl. 225; Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (dead) by Legal Representatives v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2015) 10 SCC 469 (para 81); and Bhikulal Kedarmal Goenka (D) By LRs v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2017 (2) Him. L.R. (SC) 635, it is canvassed that as the area under acquisition is to be submerged in the dam, there was no question of any activity for development to be carried out by the project proponent and thus, in absence of any activity of development to be undertaken by the project proponent, there should not be any deduction from the highest value of land arrived at in Ex. PW-7/A.

98. So far as deduction on account of development charges is concerned, that is not applicable in present case. So far as deduction on account of small area involved in sale deeds No. 12/2005 and 13/2005 is concerned, it is a fact that for arriving at the value determined in Ex. PW-7/A, sale deeds No. 12/2005 and 13/2005, which have also been taken into consideration by the Collector, while passing the award and have also been relied upon by the project proponent in average value Ex. RW-1/B, small area of land is involved, which is 0-01-78 hectares and 0-00-65 hectares, but, at the same time, it is also a matter of fact that the value of the land has not been determined only on the basis of the value arrived at in these transactions, but, the same has been determined by applying factor of classification of land as per value thereof according to method to be adopted by the revenue authorities. Further, at the time of taking into consideration a circle rate for determining the market value, the apex Court has also permitted deduction upto the rate of 45%. For these reasons, it would be proper to calculate the market value of acquired land on the basis of value arrived at in Ex. PW-7/A and/or Ex. RW-1/B, as calculated after excluding sale deed No. 309/2004, but, after making appropriate deduction. Dedection is also necessary as this average value arrived at without considering other relevant factors necessary to be considered, cannot be fair and just market value of land.

99. Learned counsel for the land owners have also relied upon LAC Parvati Hydro Electric Project v. Jeet Ram, reported in 2018 (1) Shim.L.C. 402, for substantiating their plea for claiming compensation on the basis of highest value of average Ex. PW-7/A. In the said judgment, average value of land was not in question, but, issue of calculation of amount of compensation of structures, on the basis of two evaluation reports, was in issue. Therefore, reference of this judgment in present case is misconceived. Similarly, judgment in RFA No. 251 of 2010, titled The Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board v. Smt. Nardu, decided on 30 October, 2017, alongwith other connected matters, referred for insisting no deduction on account of small chunk of land involved in the sale deeds No. 12/2005 and 13/2005, is also of no help to the land owners for the reason that in the said judgment, deduction of 25% was made on account of small chunk involved in the exemplar sale deed for want of evidence with respect to proximity and same potential. Facts in the present case are different. Value of the land in sale deeds No. 12/2005 and 13/2005, as it is, is not acceptable to the land owners as it is giving value of land, at the most, at the rate of Rs. 775 per centiare and rightly so, the said value is lesser than the highest value determined by the Collector at the rate of Rs. 821.44 per centiare. Therefore, this judgment is also not relevant in present case.

100. In Viluben Jhalejar Contractor and Himmat Singh's cases (supra) also, for smallness of the plots involved in sale deed, appropriate deduction was approved for determining value of land for awarding compensation. The fact that value of land arrived at relying upon Ex. PW-7/A is not value of land determined directly on the basis of sale deed but applying method as adopted by revenue authority. Deduction for smallness of plot has been permitted up to one third of value arrived at. But, in present case, value on the basis of sale deeds No. 12 and 13 of 2005 would be Rs. 755.14 per centiare for banjar kadeem whereas in Ex. PW-7/A, highest value of the land is Rs. 4809.09. In Himmat Singh's case (supra), 50% deduction was permitted on account of smallness of the plot. But, in present case, facts are different.

101. The Reference Court has determined value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 3038/- per centiare after calculating the average of value of land determined in average Ex. PW-7/A. The said value comes at about 36.82% less than the highest value of Rs. 4809/- calculated in average Ex. PW-7/A. In Haryana State Agricultural Market Board's case (supra), the apex Court had determined the value of land after deducting 45% from the value of property arrived at on the basis of circle rate. As discussed supra, the average value, in present case, is not a value like circle rate calculated for stamp purpose only, however, the fact remains that the said average value has been arrived at on the basis of sale deeds pertaining to small chunks of land without survey and application of expert mind, but, in mechanical manner, wherein the land of quality of banjar kadeem was transferred, average value whereof is Rs. 755.14 per centiare. The said value has not been taken to be a benchmark as the Collector itself, who, despite having considered an irrelevant sale deed of much lesser value, has determined the highest average value at the rate of Rs. 1026/- per centiare and then has determined actual value of land at the rate of Rs. 821.44 per centiare. The said amount is having huge difference to the highest value of Rs. 4809/- per centiare, as calculated in one year average Ex. PW-7/A. On the basis of calculation of Ex. RW-1/A, after excluding sale deed No. 309/2004, highest average value of land becomes at the rate of Rs. 4914/- per centiare.

102. Considering entire facts and circumstances and evidence, in case 45% deduction is made in the highest value of Rs. 4914/-, then value of land will be at the rate of Rs. 2702/- per centiare, which is slightly higher than highest sale deed No. 365/2004. On deduction at the rate of 50%, it would be Rs. 2457/-, which is lesser than highest value in exemplar sale deed No. 365/2004. Mean of these two values will be Rs. 2579/-, which is again less than the value arrived at on the basis of sale deed No. 365 of 2004. The value of land at the rate of Rs. 2702/- per centiare, arrived at after deduction of 45% is Rs. 4914/-, is slightly higher than the value of land at the rate of Rs. 2631/- per centiare arrived at on the basis of highest sale deed No. 365/2004, appears to be just and fair value of land. Therefore, it would be appropriate to determine value of acquired land at the rate of Rs. 2700/- per centiare.

103. In view of above discussion, land owners in appeals in Lots ‘A’ and ‘B’ are held entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs. 2700/- per centiare alongwith consequential statutory benefits under the law.

104. The notification under Section 4 of the Act in appeals in Lot ‘C’ was issued three years later than the notification issued in appeals in Lots ‘A’ and ‘B’. Therefore, in those appeals, land owners are entitled for addition at the rate of 12% to the value of the land determined in appeals in Lots ‘A’ and ‘B’. Hence, they are held entitled for compensation on the basis of value of land at the rate of Rs. 3024/- per centiare alongwith consequential statutory benefits under the law.

105. Respective awards passed by the Reference Court are modified in aforesaid terms.

106. Accordingly, all appeals are allowed and cross-objections are dismissed in aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.

The Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Limited And Another v. Narayan Singh And Others

Concise Analytical Summary of the Opinion (Vivek Singh Thakur, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Land Owners / Claimants (Appellants)

Project Proponent / Respondent (including Collector and Government)

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

The Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Limited And Another v. Narayan Singh And Others

Comments