Shiv Ram vs State Of H.P. & Ors

1894 (hereinafter called the "Act") in the official Gazette 2

on 2nd April 1988, 23rd July 1988 and 28th

September 1988. The Collector by his Award dated 28th

July 1988 granted a sum of Rs.43,330/- per bigha for

the acquired land. The claimant thereafter filed a

reference before the District Judge, Shimla, who vide his

order dated 11th June 1992 determined the market value

at Rs.70,000/- per bigha rejecting the claimant's plea for

the award of Rs.1,75,000/- per bigha. The matter was

taken to the Division Bench of the High Court in First

Appeal and the Bench vide its judgment dated 30th

December 1999 confirmed the compensation awarded by

the District Judge on reference but granted enhanced

interest and solatium as per the entitlement of the

claimant. The first appeal filed by the State Government

seeking a reduction in the compensation granted by the

District Judge was, however, dismissed. The present

appeal at the instance of the claimant is before us

against the judgment and order of the Division Bench

aforementioned.

3

3. Mr. Agrawala, the learned counsel for the claimant-

appellant has argued that as per Notification of the year

1980 the adjoining land in the same villages had been

acquired for the same purpose and compensation at

Rs.1.75 lakh per bigha minus 30% towards development

charges had been awarded by the High Court by its

judgment Ext.PY. He has, accordingly, pleaded that as

the present matter pertained to an acquisition of the year

1988, that is almost 8 years after the earlier acquisition,

a minimum of Rs.1.75 lakh was payable to the appellant.

Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondents

has, however, pointed out that this matter had been

dealt with by the Division Bench and the plea had been

rejected by observing that there was no evidence to show

that the land acquired in the year 1980 and the land

acquired by the impugned Notification was similar, of the

same quality, classification or potential for development

and in the absence of any such evidence merely because

some adjoining pieces of land had been granted a higher 4

compensation, there was no justification in granting

anything more in the present case.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

gone through the record. We are of the opinion that the

observations of the Division Bench with regard to the

quality and the situation of the land acquired in the year

1980 and the present acquisition are not quite accurate.

In this connection, we may refer to the evidence of the

land owner Lalit Kishore, who deposed that both these

lands fell in the municipal area and adjoined Chhota

Shimla Bazar and new colonies and flats made by the

Shimla Development Authority were close by and that

the land in question was level and was served with

facilities like electricity, water, and sewerage etc. Even

assuming for a moment that this statement could said to

be self-serving, we have chosen to consider the evidence

produced by the respondent State itself. We refer in

particular to the statements of Mangat Ram Patwari RW1

and Pratap Singh Kanoongo PW-2. Mangat Ram stated

that the lands acquired by the two Notifications were 5

situated side by side and that the land in all 4 villages

which were under acquisition were of similar quality.

Pratap Singh Kanoongo RW2 was even more forthcoming

when he stated:

"I was posted in Shimla from 1986 to June 1990. I have seen all the villages of the acquired lands. It is correct that Khalini falls by the side of Moza Patiyog. Thereafter Patii Rehan Rural and then urban. By its side village Kasumpati Jhunga falls. The quality of all these land is the same and were acquired for the same purpose. It is correct that in the past 15 to 20 years in these villages private and Govt. colonies have come up in large scale. The boundary of Moza Kasumpati Jhunga goes up to Pari Mahal. Govt. colonies have been constructed right up to Pari Mahal. In these villages land was acquired even for SDA. In all these villages modern facilities are available. I have not brought that record on the basis of which Exhibit-RC, RE and RG have been prepared. The acquired land is by the side of BCS school in Patiyog. The land of Patti Rehana falls by the side of Brook Hurst. The land of Kusumpati Jhunga falls by the side of Kasumpati Bazar."

6 5. These statements of the State's witnesses clearly fortify

Mr. Agrawala's submission that the land subject to the

two acquisition i.e. in 1980, and 1988 were of the same

quality and situation and potential for use and were

situated adjacent to each other and belonged to the same

villages. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the

observations of the Division Bench that no evidence had

come on record to justify the payment of compensation at

Rs.1.75 lakh per bigha minus 30 per cent are not

justified.

6. We have also gone through the claim made by the land-

owner/appellant before the High Court. We notice that

the claimant had sought compensation at Rs.1.30 lakh

per bigha and paid court fee on this figure. We are,

therefore, of the opinion notwithstanding the fact that

Mr. Agrawala is hesitatingly asking for Rs.5,00,000/- per

bigha or atleast Rs.1.75 lakh per bigha nothing more

than the amount claimed in the first appeal before the

High Court is admissible. As already mentioned above,

the land acquired by the Notification of 1980, 7

compensation at Rs.1.75 lakh per bigha had been

awarded with 30% cut towards development charges etc.

In view of the fact that the present acquisition was made

some 8 years later and a claim of Rs.1.30 lakh per bigha

has been made, we allow this appeal and direct that

compensation at Rs.1.30 lakh per bigha shall be payable

to the appellant. In addition to the enhanced

compensation, the claimant-appellant shall also be

entitled to solatium and interest on the enhanced

amount. We, further, direct that the entire sum payable

to the appellant under this judgment will be defrayed to

him within a period of 4 months from the date of the

supply of a certified copy of this judgment to the

respondent. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

...................................J. (DALVEER BHANDARI)

....................................J (HARJIT SINGH BEDI) 8

New Delhi, Dated: December 18, 2008