Judgment:
Kuldip Singh, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of RFA Nos. 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321 of 2001 and RFA No. 45 of 2002 arising out of common award dated 18.9.2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Kullu in land reference petition Nos. 96 of 1998, 97 of 1998, 98 of 1998, 99 of 1998, 100 of 1998, 102 of 1998, 103 of 1998, 104 of 1998, 108 of 1998, 109 of 1998, 110 of 1998, 111 of 1998, 112 of 1998, 113 of 1998, 114 of 1998, 115 of 1998, 116 of 1998, 118 of 1998, 119 of 1998, 120 of 1998, 122 of 1998, 9 of 1999 and reference petition No. 105 of 1998 respectively.
2. The facts in brief are that Himachal Pradesh Government for construction of N.H. 21, Kullu Bye-pass for public purpose issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'Act') for acquisition of land measuring 52-9-10 bighas situate in Village / Phati Kharahal , Tehsil and District Kullu. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the official gazette on 19.6.1993. The Collector announced the award on 1.9.1995 and assessed the market value of the land Rs. 36,070/- per bigha for Bagicha Bathal, Rs. 24,040/- per bigha for Bagicha Dom, Rs. 12,020/- per bigha for Bathal Som and Rs. 13,036/- per bigha for Gair Mumkin and Banjar Kadeen. However, the Collector in the award has also mentioned per bigha rates determined by him as follows:
(i) Bagicha Bathal Rs. 36,060/-per bigha
(ii) Bagicha Bathal Rs. 24,040/-- do
(iii) Bagicha Som Rs. 12,020/-- do
(iv) Gair Mumkin Rs. 1,336/-- do -
In the award of Collector rate of Bagicha Bathal Rs. 36,060/- per bigha has also been shown instead of Rs. 36,070/- and again rate of Bagicha Bathal has been wrongly shown Rs. 24,040/- against Rs. 24,040/- of Bagicha Dom. This error in the award of Collector is in consequential in view of award given by reference court which is under challenge in this Court.
3. The land owners were not satisfied with the amount of compensation given by the Collector, they filed reference petitions under Section 18 of the Act for determination of the market value of the acquired land. The various reference petitions were consolidated on 7.4.1999 with reference petition No. 96 of 1998 titled as Dot Ram and Ors. v. LAC and another, again on 17.11.1999 more reference petitions were consolidated with reference petition No. 96 of 1998 by the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge has relied award dated 26.10.1994 Ex.PW1/ G and award dated 31.7.1998 Ex.PW-8/F and determined the market value of acquired land at Rs. 3,00,000/- per bigha irrespective of classification of the land. In the impugned award, other statutory amounts have also been awarded. The interest under Section 28 of the Act has also been awarded from the date of taking possession of the acquired land.
4. Heard and perused the record. The learned Advocate General has submitted that the learned reference Court has not assessed the market value of the acquired land properly, well settled norms for determination of the market value of the acquired land have not been applied. The instances of sales relied by the appellants have been wrongly ignored. The enhanced rate has been wrongly given irrespective of the classification of the land. The learned Counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned award and has submitted that in the present case the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the gazette on 19.6.1993, the acquired land is situated in Phati Kharahal. The appellants for construction of National Highway 21 Kullu Bye Pass in Phati Kharahal had earlier also acquired the land and one of such acquisition was made on the basis of notification under Section 4 which was published in the gazette on 10.8.1991. The Collector in that case on 26.10.1994 had awarded flat rate Rs. 3,00,000/- per bigha. He has submitted that for Kullu Bye-Pass and other roads in the area lands were acquired later on also and in those acquisitions also Rs. 3,00,000/- per bigha rate was awarded. In brief, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the learned District Judge has rightly assessed the market value of the acquired land and has prayed for dismissal of the appeals.
5. The claimants have examined nine witnesses. The appellants have also examined three witnesses, both the sides have placed on record documentary evidence. The parties have placed on record copies of some sale deeds. It is not necessary to give details of copies of the sale deeds which have been placed on record by both the sides as those sale deeds have not been relied by the learned reference court for assessing the market value of the acquired land mainly on the ground that those sale deeds are of small area transactions in comparison to big area acquired for construction of Bye-Pass. But still it is necessary to refer to oral evidence of appellants in which reference of sale deeds relied by appellants has come.
6. RW-1 Gupat Ram has stated that he had sold 11 biswas 4 biswansis land for Rs. 4000/- to Ghanshyam Suri vide sale deed copy Ex.RW-1/A. In cross-examination, he has stated that the land sold by him is situated at a distance of 9 k.m. from the acquired land on a mountain. He had sold the land under compulsion on cheap rates.
7. RW-2 Jagar Nath has stated that he had sold 11 biswas land in the year 1992 for Rs. 5000/- to Chuni Lal vide sale deed copy Ex.RW-2/A. In cross-examination, he has stated that land sold by him is at a distance of 13 km. from the acquired land and was stony and banjar. He had sold the land under compulsion.
8. RW-3 Kunj Lal has stated that in the year 1992 he had sold 9 biswas land in Phati Kharahal for Rs. 3000/- to Siri Ram vide sale deed copy Ex.RW-3/A. In cross-examination, he has stated that he had sold the land under compulsion which is situated on a hill and is stony as well as banjar. The said land is at a distance of 4 km. from the acquired land.
9. On behalf of appellants, sale deed copy Ex.RA has also been tendered in evidence. In so far land covered by sale deed Ex.RA is concerned, that cannot be taken into consideration for comparing the land with the acquired land inasmuch as there is nothing on record to show that land covered by sale deed Ex.RA is comparable to the acquired land.
10. The lands covered by sale deeds Ex.RW-1/A, Ex.RW2/ A and Ex.RW-3/A are situated at distance ranging from 4 km. to 13 km. from the acquired land. The vendors of sale deeds Ex.RW-1/A, Ex. RW-2/A and Ex. RW-3/A have stated that they had sold the lands to vendees under compulsion. Therefore, these sale deeds also can not be taken into consideration for determining the market value of the acquired land. The sale deeds produced by the claimants are of small area transactions.
11. The acquired land is situated in Phati Kharahal. There is adjacent Phati Seu bag where also some acquisition took place in the past. PW-8 Yugal Sharma has stated that acquired land is situated at a distance of 1 km. from Seubag Bye Pass. In other words, Seubag Bye Pass and the Kullu Bye Pass where the present land was acquired are located in the same area.
12. Ex.PW-1/G is the copy of award dated 26.10.1994 of Collector vide which land measuring 16-6-7 bighas was acquired for construction of National Highway 21 Kullu Bye Pass in Phati Kharahal and notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 10.8.1991. The Collector had awarded Rs. 3,00,000/- per bigha flat rate for acquiring that land. Ex.PW-8/F is the copy of award dated 31.7.1998 in reference petition No. 11 of 1996 for acquiring land measuring 1-16-1 bighas situated at Seubag. The notification under Section 4 for acquiring this land was published on 10.4.1991 and learned reference court has determined the market value at Rs. 3,00,000/- per bigha. In RFA Nos. 208, 209 and 210 of 2004 decided on 29.9.2008, a learned Single Judge has awarded Rs. 3,00,000/- per bigha compensation for acquiring 2-14-11 bighas land in Phati Kharahal for construction of National Highway 21 Bye Pass. In that case notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 7.9.1996.
13. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 10.4.1991 for the land covered by Ex.PW-8/F and for land covered by Ex.PW-1/G notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 10.8.1991. Notification under Section 4 of the Act for acquiring land covered in the present appeals was published in the gazette on 19.6.1993. In these circumstances, in absence of other relevant material on record, the Collector award Ex.PW-1/G and reference court award Ex.PW-8/F can be safely relied for assessing the market value of the acquired land. In Ex.PW-1/G and Ex.PW-8/F, the market value has been assessed at Rs. 3,00,000/- per bigha. In the present case also the learned District Judge has assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 3,00,000/per bigha irrespective of the classification of the land. The learned Advocate General has failed to make out a case how the market value assessed by the learned reference court in the present case is wrong. The other statutory amounts awarded by the learned reference court are also in accordance with the Act except interest which is payable from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act and not from the date of possession.
14. No other point was urged.
15. The result of the above discussion, all appeals being RFA Nos. 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321 of 2001 and RFA No. 45 of 2002 are dismissed and the common award dated 18.9.2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Kullu in land reference petition Nos. 96 of 1998, 97 of 1998, 98 of 1998, 99 of 1998, 100 of 1998, 102 of 1998, 103 of 1998, 104 of 1998, 108 of 1998, 109 of 1998, 110 of 1998, 111 of 1998, 112 of 1998, 113 of 1998, 114 of 1998, 115 of 1998, 116 of 1998, 118 of 1998, 119 of 1998, 120 of 1998, 122 of 1998, 9 of 1999 and reference petition No. 105 of 1998 is upheld with modification only to the extent that interest under Section 28 shall be paid from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the official gazette i.e. 19.6.1993 as noticed above. No costs.