Back
2010 Supreme(HP) 1047
2011 (1) H.L.R 67
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Kuldip Singh, Judge.
Attar Singh - Appellant.
Versus
L.A.C. & another - Respondents.
R.F.A.No. 204 of 2002.
Decided on : 18.11. 2010.
For the Appellant :Mr. M.L.Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Avneesh Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the appellant to enhanced compensation, interest, and additional amounts under specific sections of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Compensation - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4 - Section 23(2) - Section 23(1A) - Section 28 - The judgment discusses the compensation awarded for the acquisition of land for public purpose for construction of a road, the assessment of damages to the land and trees, and the entitlement to interest and additional amounts under various sections of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Fact of the Case:
The government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the acquisition of land for the construction of a road. The appellant filed a reference petition seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Collector. The reference was dismissed by the District Judge, leading to this appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was entitled to enhanced compensation, interest from the date of acquisition, and additional amounts under specific sections of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court also held that the appellant was entitled to compensation for damages to trees and assessed the market value of the acquired land.
Issues: The issues included the extent of land acquired, compensation for damages to the land and trees, market value of the acquired land, and entitlement to interest and additional amounts under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant was entitled to enhanced compensation, interest from the date of acquisition, and additional amounts under specific sections of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court also assessed the market value of the acquired land and the compensation for damages to trees.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned award was set aside. The court assessed the market value of the acquired land, awarded interest, additional amounts, and compensation for damages to trees to the appellant.
Kuldip Singh , Judge
This appeal is directed against award dated 14/15.6.2002 passed by learned District Judge, Mandi in Reference Petition No. 63 of 1998.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the Government issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘Act’) for acquisition of land for public purpose for construction of Mandi-Kehanwal road, Mohal Manyana, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the official gazette on 21.9.1996. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short Collector) entered into reference and passed the award No. 12/97 on 29.9.1997 and awarded compensation at flat rate of 50,000/- per bigha upto distance of 2 km from the starting point i.e. Ram Nagar Mandi proper, for land beyond 2 Kms to 3 ½ KM the rate was fixed at `40,000/- per bigha and for the land upto a distance of 3 ½ KM to 5 KM the rate was fixed at ` 30,000/- per bigha. The appellant was granted compensation amounting to `2,52,942/- on account of damages to the trees of appellant , but it was observed that net amount payable shall be given in compliance to the directions of the High Court which comes to ` 1,65,634/- after deducting ` 87,588/- paid earlier. The Collector allowed compulsory acquisition charges under Section 23(2) of the Act and additional amount by way of interest on the market value and interest as per award dated 29.9.1997.
3. The appellant was not satisfied with the award of the Collector, he filed reference petition wherein he has stated that his land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1288/444/1, 1288/444/2, 1288/444/3 and 1288/444/4 total measuring 7-14 bighas was acquired, but compensation has been awarded only for land comprised in khasra Nos. 1288/444/1, 1288/444/2 measuring 5-5-13 bighas. The appellant was not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Collector, therefore, he prayed for enhancement of the compensation. The respondents contested the claim of the appellant. The following issues were framed:- 1. Whether 7-13-14 bighas of land of the petitioner was acquired and compensation has been paid only in respect of 5-5-13 bighas as alleged? If so, its effect? OPP. 2. To what amount petitioner is entitled to the compensation on account of the damage to his land other than the acquired land as alleged? OPP 3. Whether trees of the petitioner situate on the land other than the acquired land have been damaged? If so, to what extent? OPP 4. Whether damage to the pipe line of the petitioner was caused by the construction of the road? If so, to what extent and to what effect? OPP 5. What was the market value of the acquired land at the relevant time ? OPP 6. Whether the path of the petitioner located on the land other than the acquired land have been damaged? If so, to what extent and of what consequence? OPP 7. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation on account of the retaining wall given by the petitioner as alleged? OPP 8. Whether the road was constructed by the Public Works Department in 1973-74? If so, its effect? OPP 9. Relief. All the issues were decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondents and the reference was dismissed by learned District Judge on 15.6.2002, hence this appeal.
4. In the appeal it has been alleged that possession of the land was taken in the year 1974-75, therefore, appellant is entitled to interest from the date of possession and atleast from the year 1979 when the respondents have admitted that possession was taken. The respondents have admitted damage to the tune of 2,21,587/-. The finding that the damage was approved to the tune of ` 87,588/- is wrong. The reference Court erred in not enhancing the less damage awarded by the Collector. The copy of award in reference No. 2 dated 19.4.1996 has not been properly appreciated. The average market value of the adjoining Sanyardh Mohal was about 85,000/- per bigha in respect of orchard land which has been wrongly ignored. The additional amount
