Back
1996 Supreme(HP) 73
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
KAMLESH SHARMA,ARUN KUMAR GOEL
L.A.C.SOLAN - Appellant
Versus
BHOOP RAM - Respondent
R. F. A. Nos. 14, 9, 19, 17, 16, 22, 18 of 1984, 115 of 1983 and 60 of 1984
Decided On : 05/09/1996
In R.F.A. No. 14 of 1984 : For the appellant :Pt, Om Parkash Add!. A. G. For the respondent:Praneet Gupta vice Bhupender Gupta, Advocate. In R,F.A.No.9 of 1984 For the appellant:Praneet Gupta vice Bhupender Gupta, Advocate. For the respondent: Pt. Om Parkash, Addl. A. G. In R.F.A. No. 19 of 1984: For the appellant :Pt. Om Parkash, Addl. A. G. For the respondent: Nemo. In R. F.A. No. 17 o/1984: For the appellant :Pt. Om Parkash, Addl. A. G. For the respondent:Praneet Gupta vice Bhupender Gupta, Advocate. In R. F. A. No. 16 of 1984: For the appellant :Pt. Om Parkash, Addl. A. G. For the respondent: Nemo. In R.F. A. No. 22 of 1984: For the appellant :Pt. Om Parkash, Addl. A. G. For the respondent: Nemo. In R.F. A. No. 1% of 19M: For the appellant :Pt. Om Parkash, Add!. A. G For the respondent: Nemo. In R F.A. No. 115 of 1983: For the appellant :Pt. Om Parkash, Addl, A. G. For the respondent:Praneet Gupta vice Bhupender Gupta, Advocate. In R.F.A. No. 60 of 1984: For the appellant :K. D, Sood, Advocate. For the respondent: Pt. Om Parkash, Addl. A. G.
The market value of acquired land should be determined based on its prospects and potentiality, and not on its classification for agricultural purposes.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - MARKET VALUE - DETERMINATION - CLASSIFICATION OF LAND - UNIFORM RATE - ORDER 41, RULE 33 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - EXERCISE OF POWERS.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals arise out of the acquisition of land for the construction of Solan By-Pass Road (National Highway No. 22). The Land Acquisition Collector determined the market price of the acquired land, which was challenged by the State and the claimants in reference petitions under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The District Judge enhanced the market price, which was again challenged by the State and the claimants.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the market value of the acquired land determined by the District Judge was legal and valid. It found that the land had the prospects and potentiality of being used for the construction of residential buildings and commercial complex. The Court also held that the classification of the acquired land for agricultural purposes was not relevant, and that a uniform rate of Rs. 40 per square meter or Rs. 30,000 per Bigha should be awarded irrespective of the classification.
Issues: 1. Whether the market value of the acquired land determined by the District Judge was legal and valid? 2. Whether the classification of the acquired land for agricultural purposes was relevant in determining the market value?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the market value of the acquired land determined by the District Judge was legal and valid. It found that the land had the prospects and potentiality of being used for the construction of residential buildings and commercial complex. The Court also held that the classification of the acquired land for agricultural purposes was not relevant, and that a uniform rate of Rs. 40 per square meter or Rs. 30,000 per Bigha should be awarded irrespective of the classification. 2. The Court held that the classification of the acquired land for agricultural purposes was not relevant in determining the market value. It found that the land had the prospects and potentiality of being used for the construction of residential buildings and commercial complex, and that a uniform rate of Rs. 40 per square meter or Rs. 30,000 per Bigha should be awarded irrespective of the classification.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeals of the Land Acquisition Collector and the State of Himachal Pradesh, and modified the impugned award to award a uniform rate of Rs. 40 per square meter or Rs. 30,000 per Bigha for the acquired land.
Miss Kamlesh Sharma, J.—The following appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment, as these pertain to acquisition of land acquired for the public purpose of construction of Solan By-Pass Road (National Highway No. 22) :— SI. R. F A Title Reference No. No. Petition No.
1. 14 of 1984 L. A. C. Solan v. Boop Ham 2I-S/4 of 1979
2. 9 of 1984 Bhoop Ram v. State of H. P. —do—
3. 19 of 1984 L. A. C, Solan v. Munshi Ram 22-S/4of 1979
4. 17 of 1984 L. A. C, Solan v. Mohan Lal and others (L. Rs. of Naraini and others) 24-S/4 of 1979
5. 16 of 1984 L. A, C. Solan v. Bahadur Chand Madhok 23-S/4 of 1979
6. 22 of 1984 L. A. C.9 Solan v. G.P. Bharatwal 43-S/4 of 1977
7. 18 of 1984 L A. C., Solan v. R. K. Puri and others (L. Rs, of Santosh Puri) 48-S/4 of 1977
8. 115 of 1983 L. A. C.9 Solan v. Om Parkash and others 46-S/4of 1977
9. 60 of 1984 Shakuntala Singal and others v. State of H. P. and another 50-S/4 of 1977
2. Appeals at Serial Nos. 1 to 7 arise out a common award dated 31-8-1983 whereby seven reference petitions bearing Nos. 21-S/4 of 1979, 22-S/4 of 1979. 24-S/4 of 1979, 23-S/4 of 1979, 25-S/4 of 1979, 43-S/4 of 1977 and 48-S/4 of 1977 were decided. All the appeals except R. F. A. No. 9 of 1984 have been filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh to challenge the enhancement of market price of the acquired land awarded by the District Judge. On the other hand, ia R. F. A, No. 9 of 1984t claimant Bhoop Ram has challenged the market price of the acquired land awarded by the District Judge on the ground that it is not fair and just and has prayed for its enhancement. No appeal has been Sled either by the State or the claimants in respect of the land of Reference Petition No. 25-S/4 of 197<> titled Jeet Ham v. H. P. State. R. F. A No 115 of 1984 at the instance of the State has been filed against the award dated 31-5-1983 passed by District Judge, Solan and Strmaur Districts at Nahan challenging the enhancement of the market price of the acquired land awarded therein. In R. F. A. No. 60 of 1984, the claimant has challenged the award dated 11-7-1984 passed by District Judge, Solan and Sirmaur Districts Campt at Solan praying for further enhancement of the market price of the acquired land.
3. For acquiring the land, which is subject matter of these appeals, two notifications we re issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act). By the first notification dated 12-9-1974, the land of original claimants Santosh Puri, G. P Bharatwal, Matu Ram and Om Parkash was acquired, whereas, by second notification dated 11-8-1977 land of original claimants Munshi Ram, Naraini, Bhadur Chand, Jeet Ram and Bhoop Ram was acquired, After holding enquiry under section 9 of the Act and considering the objections of the interested persons, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the market price of the acquired land as under :— Award No. and date Village Classification Rate per Bigha/ per square metre 256/77 Saproon Bangar II Rs 26f355 per Bigha 10-7-77 Bangar Kadeem, Ghasni land, Charand and Rs. 6,400 per Bigha Gairmumkin 255/77 9-8-77 Kather Bangar I (Bagicha) Rs. 40 per sq. mtr. Jai Safaid Rs. 10 —do— Bagicha Ghasni Rs. 10 —do— Ghasni land Rs. 8 —do— Gair Mumkin land Rs. 8 —do— 15/78 Basal Bangar I Rs. 25,000 per Bigha Bangar Kadim Rs. 7,000 per Btgha Ghasni and Gair Rs. 6,000 per Bigha Murnkin
4. Feeling aggrieved, the claimants filed reference petitions under section 18 of the Act, out of which the reference petitions of original claimants Munshi Ram, Naraini, Bhadur Chand, Jeet Ram, G. P. Bharatwal and Santosh Puri were consolidated with reference petition of claimant Bhoop Ram and the evidence was recorded in the said petition and all these were disposed of by a common award dated 31-&-1983 determining the market value of the acquired land as under :— SI. No. No. of Petition and name of claimant Classification and area of land Rate awarded by court Total compensation payable Amount already e paid as per Collectors a
