The main legal point established in the judgment is that if the entire land is put for 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. The court also emphasized the provisions of Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act and its amendments, highlighting that the amount of compensation awarded by the Court cannot be lower than the amount awarded by the Collector.

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

1. Since all these appeals arise out of the same award, they were taken up together for consideration and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience and to maintain clarity, facts of RFA No. 430 of 2010, titled as 'General Manager, NHPC vs. Rattan Dass and others' are being referred to.

3. Brief facts of the case are that a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'Act') was issued by State of Himachal Pradesh on 9.2.2015 whereby it was proposed to acquire the land situated at Phati-Manyasi, Suchain-Kanon and Kotla, District Kullu, H.P. for the construction of various components of Parbati Hydroelectric Project.

4. After the completion of all codal formalities under the Act, the Collector, after taking into consideration one year average price of the land determined the value of the land on the basis of its quality in the following manner:-
      

5. The claimants/respondents, being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the award, preferred Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Act before the Collector, wherein it was submitted that the market value of the land under acquisition had not been determined in accordance with law and, therefore, the same was liable to be modified and enhanced.

6. That the learned Reference Court after taking into consideration the purpose of acquisition of the land hold the claimants to be entitled to a uniform rate of compensation at Rs 2, 87, 500/- per bigha as had been determined by the Collector.

7. Aggrieved by the award so passed, the beneficiaries have filed these appeals questioning the award on number of grounds as taken in the appeal.

8. At the outset, it may be observed that it is 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. This aspect of the case has been considered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in RFA No. 282 of 2010 titled Suresh Kumar and others vs. Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC, decided on 22.10.2016 alongwith connected matters, wherein it was observed as under:

"26. 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.

27. The apex Court in Haridwar Development Authority vs. Raghubir Singh & others, (2010) 11 SCC 581 has upheld the award of compensation on uniform rates.

28. In Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh and others, (2005) 12 SCC 564, while determining the compensation for acquisition of land pertaining to five different villages, the apex Court uniformly awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- per acre, irrespective of the classification and the category of land.

29. 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.

30. Similar view stands taken by this Court in Gulabi and etc. Vs. State of H.P., (1998) AIR(HP) 9 and later on in H.P. Housing board vs. Ram Lal & Ors., 2003 3 Shim. L.C. 64, which judgment has attained finality as SLP (Civil) No. 15674-15675 of 2