Point of Law: When purpose of acquisition is common, award of compensation at a uniform rate for different classification/categories of land, is, tenable.

JUDGMENT :

[Satyen Vaidya, J. :]

1. All these appeals are being decided by common judgment as these arise from the same common award dated 16.10.2015, passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur in Land Reference Petition Nos. 28/4 of 2013, 29/4 of 2013, 30/4 of 2013 and 31/4 of 2013.

2. The total land measuring 11-07-00 bighas was proposed to be acquired by the State Government for construction of link road “Namhol-Bahadurpur” in village Tipra, District Bilaspur.Notification dated 25.11.2009 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in Rajpatra dated 3.12.2009. Land Acquisition Collector vide award No. 14 of 2011 dated 9.12.2011 awarded the marked price ranging from Rs. 1,54,284/- to Rs. 7, 97,134/- per bigha, depending upon the classification of the land.

3. Aggrieved against the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, the claimants preferred Reference Petitions under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which came to be registered as Reference Petition Nos. 28/4 of 2013, 29/4 of 2013, 30/4 of 2013 and 31/4 of 2013 before learned District Judge, Bilaspur. The reference Court re-determined the market value at the rate of Rs. 10,28,571/- per bigha, irrespective of the classification.

4. Aggrieved against the common judgment/award, passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur dated 16.10.2015, the State has preferred RFA Nos. 305, 306, 307 and 308 of 2016. The claimants in Land Reference Nos. 29/4 of 2013, 30/4 of 2013and 28/4 of 2013 have also assailed the award/judgment dated 16.10.2015, passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur by way of RFA Nos. 40, 41 and 42 of 2016.

5. The State has assailed the judgment/award, passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur on the grounds that the standard deduction, in accordance with law,was not allowed from the market value. It is contended on behalf of the State that in terms of the judgment, passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kasturi & others vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (1) SCC 354 and Haridwar Development Authority, Haridwar vs. Raghubir Singh etc. AIR SC 2016 SC 1754, the deduction was bound to be made from the market value. On the other hand, it has been contended on behalf of the claimants that since the purpose of the acquisition of land was construction of a rural road, no deduction was permissible.

6. By way of RFA Nos. 40, 41 and 42 of 2016, the claimants have contended that their land was utilized for construction of road in the year 2005 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued in the year 2009, therefore, they were entitled to be compensated for a period between 2005 to 2009, as they had been divested from their valuable land.

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

8. Before dealing with the rival objections, it can be noticed that the purpose of the acquisition in the present case was construction of a rural road for linking the rural areas to the State Highway and the exampler sale deed relied upon was of 7 biswas of land, whereas the total acquired land was 11 Bighas 7 Biswas. The purpose of acquisition was the same. These facts are not disputed by either side. Learned Reference Court awarded compensation at uniform rate irrespective of the classification of the land.

9. It is settled that when entire land is acquired for the same purpose, the compensation of market value at the uniform rate is justifiable. Reference can be made to 2018 (2) SLC 739 titled as General Manager, NHPC & another vs. Rattan Dass & others as under:-

“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 oth