The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that claimants are entitled to compensation for the entire acquired land at uniform rates for public purpose utilization, and the market value should be determined based on the price at which the property changes hands from a willing seller to a willing buyer.

Sanjay Karol, J.

For public purpose, namely, construction of Una-Talwara railway line, land belonging to the claimants came to be acquired with the publication of Notification dated 31.10.2000, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Collector Land Acquisition, in terms of award dated 04.12.2001, No. 24, determined the market value of the acquired land ranging from Rs.640/- to Rs.24005/- depending upon the various category of land. In all, 0-94-93 hectares of land, came to be acquired.

2. Aggrieved thereof, claimants filed land reference petition s under Section 18 of the Act, seeking re-determination of the market value of the acquired land, which stand decided in terms of impugned award dated 26.07.2011, passed by Additional District Judge, Una, District Una, H.P., in Land Reference No.58 of 2009, titled as Prakash Chand through LRs and others Versus The Land Acquisition Collector, Railways, Una & another, alongwith connected reference petitions, in terms whereof, the market value of the acquired land stands redetermined @ Rs.76,000/- per Kanal, irrespective of the classification and category of land.

3. Both the beneficiary and the claimants are aggrieved of the impugned award.

4. To establish their respective claims, both the claimants and the beneficiary examined one witness each. In support of their claim, claimants have produced on record sale deeds (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4) and award dated 27.02.2010 (Ex.P-13) pertaining to Land Reference No.19 of 2005, titled as Bhagat Ram Versus LAC & others, whereby land came to be acquired in Revenue Estate Basal, wherein the market value came to be redetermined at Rs.75,000/- per Kanal, irrespective of its classification.

5. On the other hand, beneficiary has placed on record sale deeds (Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3).

6. Now if one peruses the sale deeds produced on record by the beneficiary as also the claimants, one finds that they are not reflective of the true and correct market value of the prices prevalent at the time of initiation of the acquisition proceedings. Sale deeds (Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-3) pertain to the years 1992 and 1998. Whereas, sale deeds Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-4 pertain to the years 2001 and 2000. In terms of the later sale deed, small chunk of land came to be sold for a sum of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/-. On the other hand, sale deeds (Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3) also pertain to small chunk of land, whereby land came to be sold for a sum of Rs.5,000/- to 10,000/-, prior to initiation of the acquisition proceedings. There is nothing on record to establish the proximity and similarity of the acquired land with that of the exemplar sale deeds.

7. The question which needs to be considered is as to whether the awards need to be interfered, on the asking of either of the parties or not? Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, Court is of the considered view, that the re-determination of the market value of the acquired land is absolutely just, fair and reasonable.

8. It is not in dispute before this Court, as is also evident from the material placed on record, that the entire acquired land stood fully utilized for the public purpose. Railway line stood constructed over the entire acquired land.

9. Now it is a settled principle of law that if the entire land is put for a public use and no area is left out for carrying out any developmental activity, then the claimants are entitled for compensation for the entire acquired land, at uniform rates, regardless of its categorization.

10. Further, in Nelson Fernades vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer 2007(9) SCC 447 while dealing with the case where the land was acquired for laying a Railway line, the Court held that no deduction by way of development charges was permissible as there was no question of any development thereof.

11. It is a matter of fact that the entire land was put to public purpose. Railway line stood constructed thereupon. It was used for only one purpose and as