SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(HP) 1003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA 
SUSHIL KUKREJA, J.
The Land Acquisition Collector - Appellant
Versus
Bangalu @ Daulat Ram - Respondent
RFA No. 59 of 2018 a/w RFAs No. 60 to 63 of 2018
Decided on: 04.01.2025


Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Gautam Sood and Ms. Niyati Thakur, Deputy Advocates General.
For the respondent:Mr. Abhishek Sharma and Ms. Veena Sharma, Advocates.

Uniform compensation is applicable in land acquisition cases for public use, regardless of land categorization, and no deductions are permissible for public utility projects.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act - Sections 4, 6, and 8 - Compensation determined for acquired land in village Kuhal Katal for road construction - Uniform compensation of Rs.8,50,000/- per bigha awarded by Reference Court, despite classifications - Court held claimants entitled to uniform rates as all land was for public use with no deductions permissible. (Paras 5, 10, 15)

(B) Compensation Assessment - Principle that uniform rate is applicable when entire land is acquired for the same public purpose, regardless of categorization. Court elaborated on precedent cases supporting this principle. (Paras 9, 10, 14)

Facts of the case:
Appeals from State against Reference Court's award for acquired land compensation at flat rates, challenging the basis for uniform compensation without deductions. Claims received under protest led to appeals for higher amounts.

Findings of Court:
The Reference Court's award of Rs.8,50,000/- per bigha for all land categories is upheld; deductions were unnecessary for public utility purposes.

Issues: Whether uniform compensation across land categories is justified when acquired for public use, and the necessity of standard deductions based on road construction.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that when land is acquired for the same public use, claimants are entitled to uniform compensation without deductions; past judgments were aligned with this view.

Result: Appeals dismissed, confirming the Reference Court's award.

Table of Content
1. overview of land acquisition and appeals (Para 2 , 3)
2. facts regarding compensation awarded for the land (Para 4 , 5)
3. legal arguments regarding uniformity in compensation (Para 6 , 10 , 12)
4. court's observations on no permissible deductions (Para 9 , 11 , 13)
5. final ruling regarding the dismissal of appeals (Para 14 , 16 , 17)

JUDGMENT :

Sushil Kukreja, J.

Since all the these appeals are the offshoots of award relating to Land situated in village Kuhal Katal, Post Office and Sub-Tehsil Namhol, District Bilaspur, H.P., which was acquired, through notification under Section 4 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT (for short “the Act”), for construction of Kuhal- Katal road, the same are taken up together and being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The instant appeals have been preferred by the appellant(s)/State against common award, dated 18.03.2017, passed in Land References No. 20/4 to 24/4 of 2013, passed by learned Additional District Judge Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (camp at Bilaspur) (for short “the Reference Court below”), with a prayer to set-aside the impugned award.

3. The facts giving rise to the instant appeals, in brief, are that Government of Himachal Pradesh published Notification, dated 27.08.2009, under Section 4 of the Act for acquiring land for the construction of Tepra-Kuhal Katal-Dabour road (for short “the acquired land”) in village Kuhal Katal, P.O. Namhol, District Bilaspur, H.P., and accordingly the land was acquired. Subsequently, notification, dated 18.06.2010, was issued under Section 6 of the Act, whereby objections were invited from the landowners. Ultimately, following the procedure prescribed under Section 8 of the Act, demarcation of the acquired land was carried out and the Land Acquisition Collector, after considering the available material as well as the objections, passed award, dated 09.12.2011, whereby market value of the land was assessed as under:

Sr. No.Class of landRate per bigha
1.Kuhli AwwalRs.8,50,000/-
2.Kuhli DomRs.7,31,000/-
3.Anderli AwwalRs.6,29,000/-
4.Anderli DoamRs.5,27,000/-
5.Baharli AwwalRs.4,25,000/-
6.Baharli DoamRs.2,04,000/-
7.Banzar and KhadyetarRs.1,02,000/-

4. The petitioners/claimants (respondents herein)were paid compensation on the aforesaid rates, which was received by them under protest and they preferred petitions under Section 18 of the Act before the Land Acquisition Collector, which were further referred to the learned Reference Court below.

5. The learned Reference Court below, after considering all the material, passed the impugned award, as mentioned hereinabove, whereby the petitioners/claimants were held entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.8,50,000/- per bigha of the acquired land, irrespective of the classification or category of the land, alongwith interest and other statutory benefits.

6. Feeling dissatisfied, the appellants have preferred the instant appeals with a prayer that the impugned awards be set-aside.

7. The learned Deputy Advocate General has contended that Reference Court has fallen into error by enhancing the market value of the acquired land at the uniform rate of Rs.8,50,000/- per bigha for all categories of the acquired land. He further contended that while awarding the compensation at the flat rate of Rs.8,50,000/- per bigha, the learned Reference court did not allow the standard deduction as being a rural connectivity road constructed for the benefit of the land owners, the standard deduction between 33-53% was required to be made from the flat rate of Rs.8,50,000/- per bigha.

8. Conversely, it is contended on behalf of the claimants that since the land of the claimant was acquired for the same purpose, as such, the Reference Court has rightly awarded the compensation for the acquired land at the uniform rate, regardless of its categorization. It is further contended that the purpose of acquisition of the land was construction of a road, as such, no deduction was permissible.

9. It is not in dispute that the land

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top