Compensation for acquired land must reflect fair market value, considering similar transactions and urban proximity in assessments.

JUDGMENT :

Sushil Kukreja, J.

Since both these appeals are the offshoots of award dated 13.07.2012, passed by learned District Judge, Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to “learned Reference Court”), they are taken up together for disposal.

2. The facts in brief are that the land of the appellants/claimants, who were petitioners before the learned Reference Court, situated in village Shungal, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P., was acquired by the State of Himachal Pradesh for public purpose, i.e., for construction of Kaithlighat Basha road Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short “the Act”) was issued on 15.02.2000, which was published in two daily newspapers, i.e., Himachal times and Uttam Hindu on 22.08.2000 and vide publicity was also made in the locality on 16.03.2000. Notification under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act was issued on 23.02.2001, which was published in H.P. Rajpatra on 27.03.2001 and in daily newspaper Dainik Himachal Sewa on 17.03.2001. Consequent upon the notices under Section 9(3) and (4) of the Act the land owners appeared and sought compensation @ Rs.8,00,000/- per bigha for ghasni and Rs.10,00,000/- per bigha for banjar land and also claimed that large number of fruit and non fruit trees have been uprooted at the time of the construction of the road. Ultimately, the Land Acquisition Collector, after conducting detailed inquiry, assessed the market value of the acquired land as under:

3. On the basis of the above assessment, compensation was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collection alongwith benefit of 12% additional amount, solatium, interest etc..

4. The claimants, being dissatisfied, preferred petitions under Section 18 of the Act before the learned Reference Court and the learned Reference Court held the claimants entitled for enhanced compensation @ Rs.1,40,000/- per bigha qua all categories of the acquired land with solatium, additional compensation and interest etc..

5. The claimants, being again not satisfied with the enhanced compensation, preferred the instant appeals under Section 54 of the Act with a prayer to enhance the compensation by modifying the impugned award.

6. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants (claimants), learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State and have carefully examined the records.

7. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned award is both against the law and the facts of the case, as the learned Reference Court passed the same on the basis of wrong and improper appreciation of evidence. He further contended that the learned Reference Court did not appreciate the evidence in its right perspective and failed to determine the correct, proper and apt market value of the acquired land. He also contended that the proximity of the area/land of village Shungal from the surrounding town/industrial area of Shoghi, National Highway No. 22 and Railway Stations Shoghi and Kaithlighat was not considered. Lastly, he prayed that the instant appeal be allowed and the impugned award be modified and enhanced compensation @ Rs.5,00,000/- per bigha alongwith cost and entire statutory benefits, as contemplated in the Act, be granted.

8. Conversely, the learned Deputy Advocate General supported the impugned award by contending that the impugned award has been passed by the learned Reference Court after taking into consideration both law and facts of the case and the same needs no interference. He prayed for dismissal of the appeals.

9. The law mandates that when the State compulsorily deprives a person of his land for public purpose, by invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, he must be paid compensation in accordance with law, i.e., he must be paid the true market value of the acquired land. It has been held in a catena of decisions by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the market value, as postulated in Section 23(1) of the