Back
2018 Supreme(HP) 1393
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
Land Acquisition Collector And Ors - Appellant
Versus
Kanta Devi - Respondent
Regular First Appeal No. 16 of 2013, 17 of 2013, 18 of 2013, 19 of 2013, 20 of 2013, 21 of 2013, 22 of 2013, 23 of 2013, 24 of 2013, 25 of 2013, 26 of 2013
Decided On : 23-07-2018
Important Points
Subject
Land Acquisition - Compensation Determination
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.141
LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.18, S.4, S.6
Headnote
Land Acquisition - Compensation - Land Acquisition Act - Section 4, Section 6, Section 9 - The court discussed the principles for determining compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, emphasizing the importance of the price paid in a bona fide transaction, the relevance of proximity and similar advantages, and the need to consider genuine instances for valuation. The court also highlighted the requirement to determine market value as of the date of notification under Section 4 and the deduction for development charges. The court balanced the competing interests of the parties and awarded additional interest by way of damages at the rate of 15% per annum for the period of dispossession till the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The State of H.P. issued a notification for the acquisition of land for the construction of a road. The respondents filed reference petitions challenging the compensation awarded by the Collector, which were allowed by the Reference Court. The State of H.P. appealed against the award, arguing that it was excessive and contrary to the value of the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court discussed the principles for determining compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, emphasizing the importance of the price paid in a bona fide transaction, the relevance of proximity and similar advantages, and the need to consider genuine instances for valuation. The court also highlighted the requirement to determine market value as of the date of notification under Section 4 and the deduction for development charges. The court balanced the competing interests of the parties and awarded additional interest by way of damages at the rate of 15% per annum for the period of dispossession till the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act.
Issues: The issues involved the determination of compensation for land acquisition, the relevance of sale exemplars, and the application of principles for valuation under the Land Acquisition Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principles for determining compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, including the importance of bona fide transactions, proximity, and similar advantages, as well as the deduction for development charges. The court also balanced the competing interests of the parties and awarded additional interest by way of damages at the rate of 15% per annum for the period of dispossession till the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the appeals, leaving the parties to bear their own costs and awarded additional interest by way of damages at the rate of 15% per annum for the period of dispossession till the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act.
Ashok Sharma, Adv., Vinod Thakur, Adv., Bhupinder Thakur, Adv., G.R. Palsra, Adv.
JUDGMENT
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - Since common questions of law and facts arise for consideration in these appeals, they were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by way of a common judgment.
2. Briefly stated facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the appellants - State of H.P. issued notification PBW(B)(A)-(7)1- 5/2006, dated 24.07.2006, for the acquisition of land situated in village Sainj for the construction of Sainj link road. Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act (for short ''Act'') was published in H.P. Rajpatra, Dainik Bhaskar and Dainik Jagran on 06.05.2006. Wide publicity was made in the locality on 02.05.2006. Notification under Section 6 was published in H.P. Rajpatra on 02.09.2006, Amar Ujala on 09.08.2006 and in Dainik Tribune on 10.08.2006. Wide publicity was made in the locality on 04.10.2006. Learned Acquisition Collector found that true area of the acquired land was 3-13-8 bigha. He determined the market value as under:-
| Barani Abal | @ Rs. 1,46,667/- per bigha |
| Bagicha Barari faldar | @ Rs. 2,40,000/- -do |
| Gair Mumkin @ | @ Rs. 26,667/- -do |
He awarded the following compensation:
| 1. | Value of land | Rs. 5,01,067/- |
| 2. | Compulsory acquisition charges u/s 23(2) @ 30% | Rs. 1,50,320/- |
| 3. | 12% additional amount u/s 23(1-A) from the date of notification u/s 4 i.e. 06.05.2006 to 30.11.2006 | Rs. 34,430/- |
| 4. | Interest @ 9% w.e.f. 06.05.2006 to 30.11.2006 | Rs. 25,822/- |
| | Total= | Rs. 7,11,639/- |
(Rupees Seven lacs eleven thousand six hundred & thirty nine only)
3. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Collector, the respondents filed reference petitions assailing quantum of compensation, and the same were allowed by the learned Reference Court and the respondents were held entitled to enhanced compensation @ Rs. 24,762/- per biswa irrespective of the quality and classification of land.
4. Aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Reference Court, the State of H.P. has filed the instant appeals on the ground that the award passed by the learned Reference Court is highly excessive and contrary to the value of the land as worked out in the sale deeds Ext. R1 to Ext. R5. It is further urged that the learned Reference Court could not have determined the value of the land solely on the basis of the sale deeds Ext.PW2/A and Ext.PW3/A, which were on the higher side and, in fact, related to smaller pieces of land.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
5. At the outset, it would be necessary to set out certain broad parameters and principles that are required to be borne in mind while determining the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.
6. The first and foremost is the price paid in a bona fide transaction of sale by a willing seller to a willing buyer subject to transaction being for the land adjacent to the land, proximity to the date and possessing similar advantages. Of course, the other wellknown methods of valuation like opinion of experts and yield method. In absence of any evidence of a similar transaction, it is permissible to take into account the transaction of nearest land around the date of notification under section 4 of the Act by making suitable alliance. There can be no fixed criteria as what would be the suitable addition or subtraction from the value of the land relied upon.
7. In Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Land Acquisition Officer , (1988) 3 SCC 751, the Hon''ble Supreme Court summed up the principle as follows:
[4] The following factors must be etched on the mental screen :
(1) A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the Court cannot take into account the material relie
