JUDGMENT :

All these appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act have been heard and are being decided together, as these involved common question of facts and law and have also arisen from a common award dated 19.8.2011, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Mandi.

2. The State Government issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) on 8.7.1992 for acquiring land measuring 0-41-23 hectares in Village Alyana, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. for construction of Sarori-Rissa Road. The land was to be acquired, as noticed above, included the lands of respondents in the instant appeals.

3. The Land Acquisition Collector, HP PWD, Mandi vide award dated 7.12.1995 offered the market value of Rs. 13,166.20 for entire land proposed to be acquired.

4. The respondents herein and other land owners whose land was sought to be acquired filed reference petitions under Section 18 of the Act, which were registered as Reference Petitions No. 50 to 60 of 2003. The instant appeals arise out of Reference Petition No. 53 of 2003, titled as, Pat Ram deceased through LRs Mehar Chand and others vs. Land Acquisition Collector & another, Reference Petition No. 58 of 2003 titled as, Melahar deceased through LRs Bansi Ram & others vs. Collector Land Acquisition & another, Reference Petition No. 56 of 2003, titled as, Roshan Lal vs. Collector Land Acquisition & another and Reference Petition No. 54 of 2003 titled Santu deceased through LRs, Dharampal & another vs. Collector Land Acquisition & another.

5. All the above noted Reference Petitions were decided by learned Additional District Judge, Mandi vide award dated 19.8.2011. The compensation was reassessed at the rate of Rs. 31.30 per square meters for land irrespective of its classification. The benefit of consortium and interest under Sections 23 (1)(a), 28 and 34 of the Act was also awarded.

6. Aggrieved against the award passed by learned Additional District Judge in Reference Petitions No. 53, 58, 56 and 54 of 2003, the appellants have assailed the same before this Court by filing appeals under Section 54 of the Act.

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

8. Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, learned Additional Advocate General has contended that the impugned award deserves interference, as the learned Reference Court has based its findings on only one exemplar sale deed dated 26.8.1993, Ext. PW-1/A. He further contended that the area sold vide Ext. PW-1/A was only 0-2-13 hectares and the sale deed for such a small area could not have been legally made the basis for determining the market value of the land. Learned Additional Advocate General has also taken exception to the impugned award on the ground that Ext. PW-1/A could not have been relied upon as an exemplar sale deed by learned Reference Court, as the transaction recorded therein was much subsequent in time to the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act.

9. The first contention raised by learned Additional Advocate General that on account of smallness of the land involved in exemplar sale deed, the market value could not be assessed, needs to be rejected for the reasons that the learned Reference Court had assessed the market value by making deduction at the rate of Rs. 33.33/- percent from the market value of Rs. 46.94/- per square meters. Learned Reference Court after making such deduction had assessed the market value only of Rs. 31.30/- per square meters.

10. The next contention raised by learned Additional Advocate General is to the effect that reference to the sale deed Ext. PW-1/A being later in time to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act was impermissible. The sale deed Ext. PW-1/A relied upon by learned Reference Court was executed on 26.8.1993 i.e. almost after eleven months of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act.

11. In General manager, OIL and Natural Gas Corporation