2023 Supreme(HP) 189
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
The Land Acquisition Collector & Others - Appellants
Versus
Kirna Devi and Another - Respondents
RFA No. 188 of 2017 alongwith RFA Nos. 189 to 192 of 2017
Decided On : 07-03-2023
For the Appellants :Mr. Harinder Singh Rawat, Additional Advocate General.
For the Respondents: Mr. Shanti Swaroop Bhatti and Mr. Y.K. Pathak.
Point of Law: Under Section 25 of Act, Court cannot award compensation lesser than that awarded by Land Acquisition Collector.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4, 11, 25 - Land Acquisition - Market value of land - Compensation - Aggrieved and dissatisfied with determination of market value of land, land owners preferred Petitions – Where uniform rate of compensation is to be awarded, it cannot be less than highest rate determined by Land Acquisition Collector. [Para 9]
Finding of the Court: It is settled that when purpose of acquisition is common and no developmental activity is required to be carried out, compensation is to be awarded at uniform rate - Land Acquisition Collector has determined highest value of land - In view of provisions of Section 25 of Act, Reference Court cannot determine value of land at a rate lower than rate determined by Land Acquisition Collector - In present case uniform rate of acquired land is to be determined for calculating compensation payable to land owners and value of land has been determined by Reference Court at a rate which was rate determined by Land Acquisition Collector – Court do not find any illegality, irregularity or perversity in value of land determined.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
These appeals have been preferred by State of Himachal Pradesh against common Award dated 28.7.2016 passed by Reference Court, i.e. Additional District Judge (1) Una, District Una, H.P. in LAC Petition Nos. 15/2014, titled Kirna Devi and another Vs. The Land Acquisition Collector and another; 14/14, titled Satish Kumar Vs. The Land Acquisition Collector and another; 1/14, titled Sangeeta Devi Vs. The Land Acquisition Collector and another; 2/14, titled Rajinder Singh Vs. The Land Acquisition Collector and another; and 3/14, titled Om Parkash & others Vs. The Land Acquisition Collector and another.
2. Undisputed facts are that the land belonging to respondents/land owners, situated in village Jalgarn, District Una, has been acquired by the State for public purpose, i.e. for construction of Nangal-Mehatpur-Una-Amb-Mubarikpur road by issuing notification dated 3.10.2008 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (herein after referred to as the Act), which was lastly published in the newspaper on 6.11.2008.
3. Land Acquisition Collector after completing due process under the Act, had announced Award under Section 11 of the Act determining the market value of the acquired land on the basis of category and classification ranging from 190.95 per Centiare to Rs.14639.33 per Centiare.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid determination of market value of the land, land owners preferred above referred Reference Petitions, which have been decided by the Reference court vide impugned common award dated 28.7.2016, whereby uniform flat rate has been determined by the Reference Court, for calculating the compensation payable to land owners, at the rate of Rs.14639.33 per Centiare, the highest rate determined by the Land Acquisition Collector with respect to portion of land acquired under the above process.
5. In the Reference Petitions, land owners have placed reliance upon documentary evidence Ex. PW-2/A to Ex. PW-2/P, Ex. PW-4/A, Ex. PW-5/A to Ex. PW-5/C, Ex. PW-6/A, Ex. PW-6/B, Ex. PW-7/A, Ex. PW-7/B and Ex. PW-8/A, whereas State has placed reliance upon Ex. R1 to R9.
6. When land of different kinds and classification is acquired for one purpose irrelevant to the classification of land, he market value of entire acquired land, irrespective of its classification and category is required to be assessed and awarded at a flat and uniform rate for all categories of land, because in view of purpose of acquisition classification of land completely loses significance and entire land under acquisition has to be awarded uniform rate. In present case land has been acquired for construction of road and for utilization of land for the said purpose category and classification of agricultural land is completely irrelevant.
7. It is well settled that at the time of determining market value of land for acquisition, the purpose for which the land is acquired, is relevant, and not nature and classification of land and where nature and classification of the land has no relevance for purpose of acquisition, market value of the land is to be determined as a single unit irrespective of nature and classification of the land. In such a case, uniform rate to all kinds of land under acquisition as a single unit irrespective of their nature and classification is to be awarded. (See Dadu Ram Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and others (2016) 2 ILR 636 (HP); H.P. Housing Board Vs. Ram Lal and others, 2003 (3) Shim.L.C. 64; Union of India Vs. Harinder Pal Singh and others 2005 (12) SCC 564; Executive Engineer and another Vs. Dila Ram, Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 1007; LAC and another Vs. Bhoop Ram and others, 1997 (2) SLC 229; Smt. Gulabi and etc. Vs. State of H.P. (AIR 1998 HP 9) and G.M. Northern Railway Vs. Gulzar Singh and others (Latest HLJ 2014 (HP) 775).
8. Further, it is also settled that when the purpose of acquisition is common and no developmental activity is required to be carried out, compensation is to be awarded at un