Market value in land acquisition fixed using highest bona fide comparable sale exemplar, with time escalation (10%) and size deductions (20%), considering land potentiality near development areas.

Judgment :

Sushil Kukreja, J.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Union of India (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”) under Section 54 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (for short “the Act”) against award dated 22.08.2015, passed by learned District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Reference Court”), whereby the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Government of Himachal Pradesh issued Notification, dated 04.01.2011, under Section 4 of the Act and consequent thereto acquired land, measuring 1-11-0 bighas situated in Phati Shamshi, Kothi Khokhan, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P., of respondent No. 1-Shri Mool Chand (claimant), who was petitioner before the learned Reference Court, for construction of Training Center, Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), Shamshi. The publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act was made in daily news paper Divya Himachal on 25.01.2011, in The Tribune on 03.02.2011 and Mushtri Munadi was done through Revenue Field Agency, vide rapat No. 229, dated 17.01.2011. Subsequently, the Land Acquisition Collector had assessed the market value of the land at Rs.33,154/- per biswa and awarded additional 12% compensation from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, till the date of award and solatium @ 30% on value of land, as per award, dated 18.06.2011.

3. The petitioner/claimant, feeling aggrieved with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector preferred a petition under Section 18 of the Act before the learned Reference Court for enhancement of the compensation mainly on the ground that the Land Acquisition Collector did not consider that the land was situated just adjacent to National Highway-21 at Shamshi, which is the business center of Kullu.

4. The learned Reference Court, allowed the petition of the petitioner/claimant and held him entitled for enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.30,36,000/- (rupees thirty lac thirty six thousand) per bigha. In addition to the above, the petitioner was also held entitled to solatium, additional compensation etc.. Hence, the appellant-Union of India preferred the instant appeal under Section 54 of the Act with a prayer to quash and set-aside the impugned award dated 22.08.2015, passed by the learned Reference Court.

5. I have heard the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the appellant, learned Senior Advocate for respondent No. 1, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 2 and 3 and also carefully examined the records.

6. Learned Deputy Solicitor General contended that the impugned award is based on conjectures and surmises and the findings so recorded by the learned Reference Court are not supported by the evidence on record. He further contended that the learned Reference Court had ignored the material evidence on record and granted excessive amount of compensation arbitrarily without any reason. He also contended that the acquired land was out of market and situated by the side of Beas river and the same had very less value and the learned Reference Court had granted the award excessively and arbitrarily without any sufficient reason. Lastly, he submitted that the appeal be allowed and impugned award dated 22.08.2015 passed by the learned Reference Court be quashed and set-aside