Uniform market value irrespective of classification for single-unit acquisition; additional interest as damages from pre-notification dispossession till Section 4 date upheld based on unrebutted average sale price document.

JUDGMENT :
Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants/Bhakra Beas Management Board (for short BBMB), who were respondents No. 3 and 4 before the Court below (hereinafter referred to as “the appellants”) under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) against award dated 16.01.2010, passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Reference Court”), in Reference Case No. 3 of 2008/2001, whereby the learned Reference Court partly allowed the petition filed by the petitioner/claimants (respondents herein) enhancing the market value of the acquired land to Rs.26,00,000/- per hectare.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners/claimants preferred a petition under Section 18 of the Act, wherein they averred that their land in Tikka Katrah Mouza Katrah, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Kangra, H.P., was acquired under the Act for the purpose of Beas Dam Project and award was announced on 06.07.2000, whereby inadequate compensation was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The petitioners pleaded that the Land Acquisition Collector did not consider the average sale value and also did not grant compensation for the trees submerged in Pong Dam reservoir. The possession was taken by the authorities in the year 1974, thus the petitioners are legally entitled for interest @ 12% from the date of possession. Lastly, the petitioners prayed that their petition be allowed and compensation be enhanced.

3. The learned Reference Court, partly allowed the petition of the petitioners/claimants by enhancing the market value of the acquired land to Rs.26,00,000/- per hectare alongwith solatium, interest etc.. Hence, the appellants/BBMB preferred the instant appeal under Section 54 of the Act with a prayer to quash and set-aside the impugned award dated 16.01.2010, passed by the learned Reference Court.

4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, learned counsel/vice counsel/Additional Advocate General for the respective respondents and also carefully examined the records.

5. Mr. N.K. Sood, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants 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 learned Reference Court failed to correctly calculate the market value of the acquired land and granted the award excessively and arbitrarily without any sufficient reason. Lastly, he submitted that the appeal be allowed and impugned award dated 16.01.2010, passed by the learned Reference Court be quashed and set-aside.

6. Conversely, learned Counsel/vice counsel for the respondents supported the impugned award. They contended that the learned Reference Court had rightly enhanced the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.26,00,000/- per hectare. They further contended that the acquired land was valuable, as such the instant appeal, being devoid of merits, be dismissed.

7. As per the settled principle of law, compensation for the land acquired has to be determined at market value. Market value is the price that a willing purchaser wo