The State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Kanshi Ram

C.A.Nos. @SLP (C ) No . 29319 of 2018 etc.etc. 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6308 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29319 of 2018)

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Appellants

Versus

Kanshi Ram & Ors. ...Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6309 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29320 of 2018)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6310 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29327 of 2018)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6311 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29330 of 2018)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6312 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29332 of 2018)

Signature Not Verified WITH Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2019.08.16 17:12:50 IST Reason: CIVIL APPEAL NO.6313 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29333 of 2018) C.A.Nos. @SLP (C ) No . 29319 of 2018 etc.etc. 2

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6314 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29335 of 2018)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6315 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29336 of 2018)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6316 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29337 of 2018)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6317 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29338 of 2018)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6326 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29350 of 2018)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6318 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29339 of 2018)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6319 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29340 of 2018) WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6320 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29341 of 2018) WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6321 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29342 of 2018) C.A.Nos. @SLP (C ) No . 29319 of 2018 etc.etc. 3

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6322 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29344 of 2018)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6323 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29346 of 2018)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6324 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29347 of 2018) WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6325 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29349 of 2018) WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6327-6328 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.10089-10090 of 2019) WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6331 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.19584 of 2019 @ D.No.22780 of 2019)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6332 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.19587 of 2019 @ D.No.22837 of 2019)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6330 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.18323 of 2019)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6329 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.18322 of 2019) C.A.Nos. @SLP (C ) No . 29319 of 2018 etc.etc. 4

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6333 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.19588 of 2019 @ D.No.22850 of 2019)

AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6334 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.19591 of 2019 @ D.No.22851 of 2019)

J U D G M E N T

R.Subhash Reddy,J.

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. All these Civil Appeals are filed, aggrieved by

the judgment dated 31.07.2017 passed by the High Court

of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in R.F.A.No.202 of 2011

and batch, as such they are heard together and are

disposed of by this common judgment.

4. There are two sets of appeals in this batch of

civil appeals. One set of civil appeals is filed by

the State and the other set of civil appeals is filed

by the respondents-claimants of the land, for grant of

additional interest of 15% per annum on the

compensation awarded to them. For the purpose of C.A.Nos. @SLP (C ) No . 29319 of 2018 etc.etc. 5

disposal we treat the Civil Appeal arising out of

S.L.P.(Civil) No.29319 of 2018 as the lead matter.

5. The Gram Panchayat, Namhol made a request to the

appellants for construction of the road from Namhol to

Bahadurpur. In view of the request made by the Gram

Panchayat, the appellants have constructed the road

from the village Tepra, Sub Tehsil Namhol, District

Bilaspur. It is stated that for the above said purpose

of construction of road, possession of the land was

taken in the year 1988.

6. When the possession of the land was taken for

construction of the road, some of the owners of the

land whose land was utilized for construction of road

approached the High Court and filed writ petition in

C.W.P.No.735 of 2004 complaining that their land was

utilized for public purpose, without acquisition of

land in accordance with law. Pursuant to directions

issued by the High Court in the aforesaid writ

petition, the appellants have initiated land

acquisition proceedings, to acquire 18-15 bighas of

land situated at Tepra village. Notification under

Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for

short, ‘the Act’) was published in the Official C.A.Nos. @SLP (C ) No . 29319 of 2018 etc.etc. 6

Gazette on 30.7.2005. After completing the necessary

formalities the Land Acquisition Officer has passed a

common Award dated 08.05.2007 by assessing the market

value of the acquired land on the basis of

classification of land as under:-

Classification of land Rate per Bigha 1. Andrali Aval Rs.61,666.00 2. Andrali Doem Rs.51,666.00 3. Baharli Aval Rs.41,666.00 4. Baharli Doem Rs.20,000.00 5. Khariyater & Banjer Rs.5,000.00

7. Not satisfied with the market rate fixed by the

Land Acquisition Officer, respondents-claimants have

sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and their

claims were referred to the District Court. The

Reference Court on the basis of the material placed

before it, enhanced the compensation by fixing uniform

rate of Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha, for all categories of

land, irrespective of classification, along with other

consequential benefits as per the provisions of the

Act.

8. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Reference Court

fixing compensation of Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha, the

appellants have preferred R.F.A.No.202 of 2011 and

batch questioning the fixing of the market value of the C.A.Nos. @SLP (C ) No . 29319 of 2018 etc.etc. 7

acquired land by uniform rate of Rs.7.00 lakhs per

bigha. In the appeals preferred by the State, the

respondents have preferred cross objections claiming

interest from the date of taking possession to the date

of publication of Section 4(1) Notification. By the

impugned judgment the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at

Shimla by a common judgment dismissed the appeals filed

by the State and allowed the cross objections by

awarding interest @ 15% per annum on the market value

of the land fixed by the Reference Court, from 1.1.1989

till the date of Notification issued under Section 4(1)

of the Act i.e. 30.7.2005. Aggrieved by the judgment of

the High Court, appellants have filed these appeals.

The respondents-claimants also preferred appeals

claiming interest by way of damages @ 15% per annum on

the total compensation payable to the respondents, not

merely on the market value as awarded by the High

Court.

9. We have heard Sri Abhinav Mukerji learned counsel

appearing for the appellants and Sri B.S. Banthia

learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

10. In this batch of appeals, it is mainly contended

by Sri Abhinav Mukerji learned counsel appearing for C.A.Nos. @SLP (C ) No . 29319 of 2018 etc.etc. 8

the State of Himachal Pradesh, that though a large

extent of 18-15 bighas of land was acquired for the

purpose of constructing the road, the Reference Court

has fixed compensation @ Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha basing

on the sale deed Ex.PW-1/A of small chunk i.e. 1 biswa

of land and granted abnormal hike in the market value

of the acquired land. It is also brought to our notice

that the Ex.PW-1/A dated 24.11.2004 is the land sold by

PW-2 Garja Ram to PW-3 Kuldip for a consideration of

Rs.50,000/- for one biswa of land. It is submitted

that PW-2 Garja Ram is also one of the claimants in the

acquisition proceedings. It is submitted by the learned

counsel that having regard to total extent of 18-15

bighas of land which was under acquisition, the

Reference Court should not have relied on Ex.PW-1/A for

fixing the compensation @ Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha. It

is also submitted that though the appellants have

produced a comparable sale under sale deed Ex.’RA’

dated 04.05.2001 under which 4-51 bighas of land

situated in village Dabar Paragana Bahadurpur Tehsil

Sadar District Bilaspur was sold but the same was not

considered without assigning any valid reasons. It is

also submitted by the learned counsel that the High C.A.Nos. @SLP (C ) No . 29319 of 2018 etc.etc. 9

Court committed an error in awarding damages @ 15% per

annum on the market value of land, from the date of

taking possession to the date of notification.

11. On the other hand it is submitted by Sri B.S.

Banthia, learned counsel for the respondents that the

lands of the respondents-claimants who were all small

farmers were taken possession in the year 1988 and they

are not paid the market value of their lands by the

appellants. It is submitted that in absence of any

other comparable sale in the village, the Reference

Court and the High Court rightly considered the

document Ex.PW-1/A and fixed the compensation for the

acquired land @ Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha. It is further

submitted that though the land under sale deed

Ex.PW-1/A was sold at the rate of Rs.10.00 lakhs per

bigha, but the Reference Court after deducting 30% has

fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.7.00

lakhs per bigha. It is submitted that there is no

merit in the appeals preferred by the State. Further

it is also contended by the learned counsel for the

respondents that the possession of the land in question

was taken as early as in the year 1988 and only after

directions were issued in the writ petition in C.A.Nos. @SLP (C ) No . 29319 of 2018 etc.etc. 10

C.W.P.No.735 of 2004, Notification under Section 4(1)

of the Act was issued on 30.07.2005. It is submitted

that the High Court while awarding additional interest

@ 15% per annum has committed error in awarding such

interest only on the market value of the land fixed by

the Reference Court, instead of total compensation

payable to the respondents-claimants.

12. At the outset it is to be noted that even

according to the case of the respondents-claimants

possession of the land in question was taken in the

year 1988 for constructing the road and only after

directions were issued in C.W.P.No.735 of 2004

Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act came to be

issued on 30.07.2005. The Land Acquisition Officer

after collecting necessary material, has passed a

common Award on the basis of the classification of the

land. The Land Acquisition Officer has categorized the

land into 5 categories of the land and fixed

Rs.61,666.00 for Andrali Aval, Rs.51,666.00 for Andrali

Doem, Rs. 41,666.00 for Baharli Aval, Rs. 20,000.00 for

Baharli Doem and Rs.5,000.00 for Khariyater & Banjer.

13. Not satisfied by the Award passed by the Land

Acquisition Officer, the respondents sought reference C.A.Nos. @SLP (C ) No . 29319 of 2018 etc.etc. 11

under Section 18 of the Act which was referred to the

District Court. The Reference Court has fixed the

compensation by awarding uniform rate at Rs.7.00 lakhs

per bigha based on the Ex.PW-1/A dated 24.11.2004.

14. At this stage it is to be seen that C.W.P.No.735

of 2004 must have been filed in the first quarter of

the year 2004 and Ex.PW-1/A is dated 24.11.2004.

Under the sale deed Ex.PW-1/A only one biswa of land

was sold by PW-2 Garja Ram to PW-3 Kuldip, for a

consideration of Rs.50,000/-. It is not in dispute

that PW-2 Garja Ram is also a claimant in the land

acquisition proceedings in the impugned judgment. When

the total land admeasuring 18-15 bighas of land was

acquired, the Reference Court and the High Court

committed error in accepting document in Ex.PW-1/A, as

a comparable sale for the purpose of fixing the market

value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.7.00 lakhs

per bigha. As no other documentary evidence is

available on record and further in view of the

allegation of the appellants that the sale deed in

Ex.’RA’ dated 04.05.2001 under which 4-51 bighas of

land in adjoining village was sold in the year 2001, is

not considered without assigning valid reasons, we are C.A.Nos. @SLP (C ) No . 29319 of 2018 etc.etc. 12

of the view that these appeals filed by the State are

to be allowed by remitting the matter for fresh

consideration by the Reference/District Court. As much

as PW-2 is the vendor under Ex.PW-1/A, who is no other

than one of the claimants in the land acquisition

proceedings, such sale could not have been considered

as a comparable sale for the purpose of fixing the

market value of large extent of land i.e. 18-15 bighas.

We are of the view that the Reference Court has

committed error in relying on such document for fixing

the compensation at the rate of Rs.7.00 lakhs per

bigha. If no other comparable sales are available in

the same village it is always open to the Reference

Court to consider sales in the adjoining villages

during the relevant period. Even otherwise there are

other methods for fixing the compensation. Such

erroneous fixation of market value at the rate of

Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha as fixed by the Reference

Court, ought not to have been approved by the High

Court. As such we are of the view that the appeals

filed by the State deserve to be allowed, by remitting

the cases to the Reference Court for fresh

adjudication.

C.A.Nos. @SLP (C ) No . 29319 of 2018 etc.etc. 13

15. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons all the

appeals filed by the State are allowed by setting aside

the common judgment dated 31.07.2017 in R.F.A. No. 202

of 2011 and batch. Consequently the Award of the

Reference Court fixing the compensation for the

acquired land at the rate of Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha,

also stands set aside and matters are remitted back for

fresh consideration by the District Court for

considering the references in accordance with law and

to pass fresh Award. As much as the Notification under

Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 30.7.2005, we

direct the Reference Court to dispose of references

within a period of six months from date of this

judgment. We permit both the sides to adduce further

documentary and oral evidence, in support of their

case. As the appeals filed by the State are allowed by

this Court, the additional interest awarded at the rate

of 15% per annum from the date of Notification is also

set aside. It is open to the Reference Court to

consider the claim of the claimants for award of the

additional interest from the date of taking possession

to the date of issuance of Section 4(1) Notification in

accordance with law. We do not wish to express any C.A.Nos. @SLP (C ) No . 29319 of 2018 etc.etc. 14

opinion on such claim, such claim is to be considered

independently in accordance with law.

16. As much as the appeals filed by the State are

allowed, the batch of civil appeals filed by the

respondents-claimants are dismissed with no order as to

costs. It is made clear that the compensation which is

already paid to the claimants, will be subject to

further orders to be passed by the Reference Court.

.......................J. [Abhay Manohar Sapre]

.......................J. [R. Subhash Reddy]

New Delhi, August 14, 2019.