RFA/584/2011 of LAC Vs KRISHNA DEVI on 31 December 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESHSHIMLA

RFA No. 584 of 2011.

Reserved on : 18th December, 2018. Decided on : 31st December, 2018.

State of H.P. & another

...Appellant.

Versus

Smt. Krishna Devi & others

....Respondents.

Coram:

.The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge Whether approved for reporting?[1] Yes.

For the Respondents:Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.

The State of Himachal Pradesh, is, aggrievedby the award pronounced by the learned ReferenceCourt, upon, reference petition No. 14-FTC/4 of 2009, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

whereunder, it determined, the, market value of theacquired lands, in a sum of Rs.30,000/- per biswa, and,applied the afore market value, to, all the categories oflands, as stood brought to acquisition, and, addedthereon, all, the requisite statutory benefits. 2.The short submission addressed before thisCourt by the learned Additional Advocate General, forimpugning, the, apt award is centered, (i)upon, an inaptreliance being placed by the learned Reference Court,upon, Ex.PW1/B, exhibit whereof is a certified copy of anaward pronounced by the learned Additional DistrictJudge, Solan, upon, petition No.34-S/4 of 2009, (ii)whereunder, the market value, vis-a-vis, the landslocated in village Jabal Jamrot, stand, computed in a sumof Rs.6 lacs per bigha, on the ground (a) qua the aforeverdict being not attracted, vis-a-vis, the acquired landslocated in, a, contradistinct therefrom village, inasmuchas Village Sujni; (b) also when no evidence stoodadduced, vis-a-vis, proximity of lands located in village Suni, vis-a-vis, the lands located in village Jabal Jamrot.Contrarily, the learned Additional Advocate General hascontended with much vigour before this Court, (c) thatthe one year average market value of the lands, as,assessed by the learned Collector concerned, rathercomprising the justifiable parameter, for, on its anvil,hence determining the just and fair compensation, vis-a-vis, the acquired lands. However, the afore contention,cannot be accepted, (d) given the existence, on the fileof the learned reference Court, a site plan, disclosing theproximity of village Sujni, whereat the acquired landslocated, vis-a-vis, village Jabal Jamrot, (e) AND, when withrespect, to, lands located in the, latter village, Ex.PW1/B,stood, pronounced, and, also stood relied upon by theReference Court, in its, making the impugned award,renders, hence, reliance thereon, to be well founded. 3.A bare perusal of the afore site plan, broughton record, by an official of the Land Acquisition Collectorconcerned, through makes (a) disclosure of some villages being rather located, intervening, the location of villageSujni, and, village Jabal Jamrot. However, even if, there isoccurrence of some villages, intervening, the location ofvillage Sujni, and, of village Jabal Jamrot, (b) yet theaward borne in Ex.PW1/B, pronounced with respect to thelands located in village Jabal Jamrot, would per se nothence be rendered either irrelevant or unreadable, for,hence on its anvil, making computation of the marketvalue of the lands, located in village Sujni, (c) unlessevidence stood adduced, that, in proximity, to, theissuance of notification under Section 4 of the LandAcquisition Act, notification whereof stood issued on11.8.2007, sale deeds being executed, vis-a-vis, landslocated in village Sujni, and, qua villages located inproximity thereto. However, the aforesaid evidence isgrossly amiss, (d) thereupon, when under the appositestatutory notification, hence, lands located in villageSujni, as well as, those located, in village Jabal Jamrot,were acquired for a common public purpose, (e)

thereupon, when there is no further evidence, that, thelands located in village Sujni, did not, carry a marketvalue, at par with the lands located, in village JabalJamrol, hence, therefrom an imminent conclusion, is,fostered qua the reliance placed upon Ex.PW1/B by thelearned Reference Court, for, on its anvil, its, adjudgingthe market value of the acquired lands, not, sufferingfrom any gross infirmity.

4. Even otherwise, reiteratedly, with no saleexemplars, being placed on record by the appellant,appertaining to the lands located in village Sujni, and, noralso the afore purported sale exemplars hence satiatingthe twin parameters; (a) its/theirs purported executionoccurring in proximity tot he issuance of the appositestatutory notification; (b) or lands borne therein holdingproximity in location angle, vis-a-vis, the acquired lands,thereupon, its appears that the reliance placed, upon,Ex.PW1/B by the learned Reference Court, for, thereuponits adjudging the market value of the acquired lands, rather not suffering from any gross fallibility or inherentfallacy.

5. A catena of judicial verdicts, has settled, thelegal proposition qua upon the lands standing acquiredfor a common public purpose, inasmuch as forconstruction of road, thereupon, the contradistinctvalue(s) borne by the contradistinct categories of lands,rather paling into insignificance, given, upon, completionof the public purpose, the relevant categorization ratherstanding eclipsed.

6. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit inthe instant appeal, and, it is dismissed accordingly. Insequel, the impugned award is affirmed and maintained.All pending applications also stand disposed of. No orderas to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.

31[st] December, 2018.

(jai)

(Sureshwar Thakur) Judge.