IMPORTANT POINT
The landowner is entitled to compensation at the market value of the land, irrespective of its classification, based on the purpose of acquisition and settled legal principles.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this appeal, the appellant/landlord has challenged the award passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Mandi, H.P., in Reference Petition No. 72 of 2008, dated 23.07.2012, in terms whereof, the Reference Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Reference Court.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that the land of the appellant situated in Village Tatapani, District Shimla was acquired for the purpose of the construction of Kol Dam Hydro Electric Project. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 11.12.2000. After complying with the codal formalities, the award was passed by the Collector on 16.02.2008. Feeling aggrieved by the said award, the appellant preferred a Reference Petition on the ground that the compensation awarded to the land owner was low, inadequate and was liable to be modified. According to the landlord, the entire acquired land was situated on road-head in Village Tatapani, which was a tourist spot and also had religious significance and according to the land owner, the commercial potentiality of the land was ignored by the Collector, while announcing the award. The contention of the land owner was not accepted by the beneficiary of the acquisition proceedings.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Reference Court framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the marked value of the acquired land assessed by the Collector is not adequate. If so, what is the market value of the land and to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled? OPP

2. Relief.”

4. On the basis of the evidence led by the parties in support of their respective contentions, the issues were decided as under:-

“Issue No.1: No

Relief: Petition dismissed as per operative part of the award.”

5. Learned Reference Court held that the land owner was not able to demonstrate that the award announced in favour of the land owner was inadequate. It further held that no sale deed etc., was produced by the land owner to substantiate his contention. It further held that there was no contention raised in the Reference Petition that the compensation paid for the structure/building was inadequate or the same was not paid and the evidence which was led in this behalf by the land owner could not be considered for the purpose of the enhancement of the compensation.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to CMP No. 18409 of 2023 filed under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which application hereby stands allowed, as the additional evidence sought to be led by the petitioner is the copy of the award dated 13.09.2013, passed by the learned Reference Court in the case of persons similarly situated as the appellant, which is necessary and relevant for the purpose of adjudication of this appeal. Learned counsel placing reliance on said Award, submits that as the award amount announced by the Collector, was enhanced by the learned Reference Court in the other Reference Petitions by holding that the land owners were entitled to the market value of the highest quality of land acquired, the appellant herein is at least entitled to the said relief because in the present case the award has been announced on the basis of the classification of land. He submitted that this appeal, therefore, deserves to be allowed and the award passed by the learned Collector as well as the learned Reference Court require modification to the extent that the appellant be held entitled to compensation on the basis of the market value of the best quality of land assessed by the Collector.

7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has emphatically denied this contention of the appellant and submitted that the appeal being devoid of any merit be dismissed.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2 as well as lear