The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Land Acquisition Act, specifically in determining the market value of acquired land and the inapplicability of deduction for development charges for certain acquisition purposes.

JUDGMENT

Vivek Singh Thakur J. - These appeals arising out of common award passed in Land Reference Petition Nos. 5/10, 6/10, 7/10, 8/10, 9/10, 10/10, 12/10, 13/10, 14/10, 15/10, 16/10, 17/10, 18/10, 20/10, 21/10 and 22/10, and are being decided by this common judgment, as common question of law and facts involved in these appeals is to be decided on the basis of common evidence led in one Reference Petition after consolidation of all Reference Petitions pending in the Court of learned District Judge.

2. For establishing ''Sub Station and construction of road'' for M/s Everest Power Company Limited Malana-2 (appellant herein), land of respondents-landowners situated in Shilihar Kothi Kotkandi, Tehsil and district Kullu, H.P. was acquired by initiating acquisition process after issuing notification dated 20.6.2009 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act), which was published in H.P. Rajpatra on 23.6.2009 and in newspaper on 24.6.2009.

3. After completing codal formalities, Land Acquisition Collector had determined rate of land under acquisition on the basis of classification as under:-

4. Being aggrieved by the rates determined by Land Acquisition Collector, land owners preferred land reference petitions which were decided by learned District Judge awarding uniform value of acquired land irrespective of nature and classification of land @ 39,000/-per biswa along with consequential statutory benefits as permissible under the Act, vide impugned award.

5. Appellant has assailed the award mainly on the ground that while relying upon sale deed Ex. PW-10/B for determining the value of acquired land, learned District Judge after rightly making deduction of 65%, has wrongly added increase of 10% per year in the value of land arrived at after making deductions.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.

7. There are certain undisputed facts enumerated herein after. Land owners have proved on record sale deed Ex. PW-2/B dated 29.11.2001, wherein 1 biswas land was sold/purchased for Rs. 50,000/-, sale deed Ex. PW-3/B dated 8.9.2003, wherein 1 biswa land was sold/purchased for Rs. 2,00,000/- and also sale deed Ex. PW-10/B dated 16.7.1993, wherein 6 biswa land was sold/purchased for Rs. 2,50,000/-. Land owners have also proved on record agreement Ex. PW-4/A, Ex. PW-4/B and Ex. PW-4/C executed between appellant project proponent and various land owners regarding purchase of land by appellant for installation of tower in the same Phati (village) for consideration of Rs. 60,000/- per biswa. Land owners have also tendered sale deeds Ex. PA and Ex. PB on record, which were not relied upon by them during the course of arguments before learned District Judge.

8. It is also admitted fact that appellant project proponent has neither filed reply nor led any evidence in land reference petitions.

9. Learned District Judge has discarded sale deeds Ex. PW- 2/B and Ex. PW-3/B on the ground that land sold/purchased vide these sale deeds was only 1 biswa, and after discarding agreements Ex. PW- 4/A, Ex. PW-4/B and Ex. PW-4/C on the ground that in these agreements, in addition to selling land for purpose of erection of towers for transmission line, access through other land of land owners to the acquired land was also provided, has relied upon sale deed Ex. PW- 10/B, wherein 6 biswa of land was sold and purchased for Rs. 2,50,000/-.

10. Learned District Judge has ignored sale deeds Ex. PW-2/B and Ex. PW-3/B on the ground that these sale deeds were pertaining to only 1 biswa of land, but he has put reliance on PW-10/B, in which also small chunk of 6 biswa land was involved and for this reason he had made deduction of 65% in the value of land so arrived at in sale deed. It is settled that in absence of an