The purpose of acquisition and the potentiality of the acquired land are significant in determining compensation. The classification of land becomes irrelevant upon acquisition for a common purpose, and the market value of smaller tracts of land can be relevant in assessing compensation for larger tracts, especially when the larger tracts are advantageous and situated in a developed area.

Sureshwar Thakur, Judge

The aforementioned appeals arise out of a common award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Una in land reference petitions, hence they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The brief facts of the case necessary for deciding these appeals, are that the lands of the respondents, which were subjected to acquisition proceedings, are situated at village Panoh, Tehsil and District Una, H.P. In total, they measure 7-26-75 hectares and were acquired for construction of a railway line between Nangal Dam to Talwara. All the lands comprised in the aforementioned appeals are located in the same village and are contiguous to each other.

3. The Land Acquisition Collector vide common award dated 10.8.2001 awarded different/variant rates of compensation for different classifications and categories of lands.

4. The award of the Land Acquisition Collector was subjected to impeachment by way of the land holders/land owners preferring reference petitions under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the learned District Judge, Una, who assigned them for adjudication, to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Una. The learned Additional District Judge, Una, on consideration of the material as laid before him had enhanced the compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, in the impugned award. The enhancement of compensation was, on the score of the learned District Judge, Una, coming to award, uniform compensation, for all categories of lands or irrespective of their classification, while relying upon sale deed comprised in, Ex.PW1/C.

5. In the appeals, before this Court, preferred at the instance of the authority for whom the land was acquired and on whom the liability to pay compensation as awarded, has been fastened, it, has been averred that the findings and the reasons afforded by the learned Additional District Judge, Una for reaching a conclusion, that the compensation amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector in impugned award, necessitates enhancement, are infirm, in as much, as: (a) the learned Additional District Judge, Una having disregarded, as well, as discarded, the factum of the land subjected to acquisition bearing different classifications/categories, hence, qua each of the classifications a corresponding rate of compensation was entailed to be assessed and no uniform rate of compensation as assessed by the learned Additional District Judge, Una, in the award impugned before this Court could be awarded; (b) the learned Additional District Judge, Una, has also untenably discarded the probative worth of Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 which comprised instances of sale, contemporaneous to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, as also, the sale instances of land located in immediate proximity to the land subjected to compensation. Hence, when the legally enjoined criteria for theirs being reckoned and theirs enjoying probative value has been fulfilled, in as much, as they satisfied the criteria of proximity from time angle vis-à-vis the acquired land and also proximity from location angle vis-à-vis notification for their acquisition, their evidentiary value having come to be not appreciated, has occasioned incalculable miscarriage of justice. Even the wide expanse of land subjected to acquisition, in as much, as when land measuring 7-26-75 hectares was acquired, hence, the sale instance relied upon by the learned Additional District Judge, Una comprised in Ex.PW1/C qua the minimal land, sold therein comprising 2 kanals, 10 marlas, was not construable to be an admissible and relevant sale instance or comprising the relevant parameter for assessing on its strength, the compensation awarded for the entire land subjected to acquisition. Even if it assumingly, was a relevant and admissible legal parameter, for assessing on its strength compensation for the land subjected to acquisition, yet with the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Cou