The determination of market value in land acquisition cases should be based on evidence of sale transactions and the rise in land value since the acquisition proceedings commenced.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Karol, J.

In all these appeals common award dated 29.10.2005, passed by learned District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, stands assailed on two grounds: (i) question of limitation was not considered by the Court below; (ii) re-determination of the market value, enhancing the amount of compensation, for the acquired land is much on the higher side.

2. Certain facts are not in dispute. Land for public purpose, namely Snow and Avalanches Study Establishment, at Manali was acquired by the State. Acquisition proceedings commenced with publication of notification dated 5.7.1999, published in the official gazette, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In all, 31-6-06 bighas of land in Phati Vashisht was acquired by the State. On 26.6.2000, the Collector, Land Acquisition, passed award, determining the market value of the acquired land, classification and category wise. For category Bagicha, Ropa Rs. 42500/- per biswa was awarded. Whereas, with respect to category Gairmumkin, Rs. 4200/- per biswa was awarded.

3. Dissatisfied with the same, various land owners filed separate petitions under Section 18 of the Act. Undisputedly, with respect to the land belonging to certain other claimants, District Judge, in separate proceedings, enhanced the compensation by re-determining the market value of the land to be Rs. 70,000/- or Rs. 80,000/- per biswa. This was irrespective of any category/classification. Undisputedly, appeals filed by the State came up for consideration before this Court and such award stands affirmed vide judgment dated 19.06.2009 passed in RFA No. 349 of 2005, titled as Collector Land Acquisition HP.PWD., Kullu and others Versus Shri Hukam Ram and others alongwith connected matter, as also judgment dated 22.04.2008 passed in RFA No. 256 of 2002, titled as Collector, L.A.C. Versus Durga Dass alongwith connected matter.

4. In the case of instant claimants, District Judge has re-determined the market value of the claimants' land to be only Rs. 60,000/- per biswa, irrespective of its category/classification. Significantly while doing so, Court below referred to and relied upon awards, which were subject matter of appeal in Durga Dass (supra) and Hukam Ram (supra). Yet the claimants herein have not filed any cross objections and are satisfied with the enhanced amount.

5. The determination of the market value, in the instant case, by the learned District Judge, cannot be said to be perverse or illegal at all. Noticeably, apart from earlier awards passed by the District Judge, which stood proved on record, by also leading evidence, exhibiting contiguity and similarity of potentiality of user. With respect thereto, for the adjoining land claimants have proved sale transaction (Ex. PW-2/A), exhibiting sale of land @ Rs. 1,00,000/- per biswa. Vendor Nirat Ram (PW-2) has proved the same. No doubt, this transaction pertains to only 3 biswas of land, but then it pertains to the year 1992, whereas, acquisition proceedings, in the instant case, commenced much later in the year 1999. Market value of land, from then has risen. The exemplar awards pertain to the very same acquisition proceedings. Thus, either way, compensation, so awarded by the Court below, cannot be said to be on the higher side. Court below has also taken note of sale transactions (Ex. R-1, R-4 and R-11), so placed on record by the State. Crucially none stepped into the witness box to prove similarity and potentiality of such exemplar sale deeds with that of the acquired land, unlike what was so done by the claimants. As such, findings with regard to determination of market value of the land @ Rs. 60,000/- per biswa, requires no interference.

6. Despite the appellant taking objection in the written statement, no issue of limitation was either framed or pressed during trial. Also no submission was made at the time of hearing of the petition. Even here, in the grounds of appeal, no such plea is t