Lac and anr. Vs. Piru Ram Alias Piru and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- surjit singh, j.1. by this common judgment, six appeals, filed by the land acquisition collector, kullu, against the award dated 16.4.2002 of district judge, kullu, are being disposed of, because all these appeals arise out of the same award as also the same acquisition proceedings.2. facts relevant for the disposal of the appeals are like this. government of himachal pradesh in public works department, issued whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? a notification, under section 4 of the land acquisition act, for acquisition of certain land belonging to different persons and situate in phati balh, kothi maharaja, tehsil and district kullu, for the purpose of construction of mohal-chhoil, khokhan-bajaura road. notification was published in the official gazette on 23.10.1993 and in two newspapers, one in english and another in vernacular on 5.11.1993. thereafter notification, under sections 6 and 7 was issued and published on 24.12.1994. land of the respondents, in all the six appeals, was included in the aforesaid notifications. land acquisition collector assessed the market value of the land, on the basis of classification of the land. for bathal dom land, market value was assessed @ rs. 94,602/- per bigha. in respect of bathal som land, market value was assessed @ rs. 61,213/- per bigha. in case of gair mumkin land, market value was assessed @ rs. 61,213/- per bigha. compensation was accordingly awarded and paid to the respondents. they were not satisfied with the award. they felt that the compensation assessed and paid by the land acquisition collector was grossly on the lower side. they requested the land acquisition collector for making references to the district judge, under section 18 of the land acquisition act. accordingly references were made.3. learned district judge framed issues. parties were afforded opportunities to produce evidence. respondents proved three transactions of sale which had taken place within two years of issuance of notification, under section 4 of the land acquisition act. as per these transactions, the average market value of the land was rs. 28,333/- per biswa or say rs. 5,66,660/- per bigha.4. respondents also proved three transactions. learned district judge did not take those transactions into account for the reasons (i) the land sold was for away from the acquired land compared to the land sold through sale deeds proved by the respondents (ii) in two cases the venders were in urgent need of money and, so, those were the cases of distress sale and (iii) in one case the sale was by a father in favour of her daughter and as per the testimony of daughter, the transaction was in the nature of a gift and she had paid money only to meet the expenses, on account of stamp duty and registration charges etc.5. learned district judge concluded that the transactions proved by the respondents pertained to small parcels of land and, therefore, the price fetched by the venders was the retail price of the land. to work out the wholesale price, learned district judge reduced the average price by 60% and assessed the market value at the rate of rs. 2,26,600/- per bigha, irrespective of the classification of the land and ordered the appellant to pay the compensation accordingly, alongwith compulsory acquisition charges, increase under section 23(1)(a) and interest, under section 28 of the land acquisition act. land acquisition collector has appealed against the said award.6. i have heard the learned advocate general, representing the appellant as also the learned counsel for the respondents in all the six matters.7. to prove the three transactions, upon which the learned district judge has based his award, respondents examined the vender pw-2 jagdish kaur, who sold two different parcels of land to different vendees. vide sale deed ext.pw2/a, she sold 6 biswas of land for rs. 1,80,000/- to two persons, named dolma and gial chan, on 19.12.1991 and 4 biswas of land for rs. 1,00,000/- to chhimed dolma, on 26.5.1992. as regards the third transaction, respondents tendered in evidence sale deed ext. pa, per which 1.5 biswa of land was sold for rs. 45,000/-, on 19.10.1993.8. admittedly, the land sold through these three documents (sale deeds) is situated in the vicinity of the acquired land. average market value of the land, on the basis of these transactions, comes to rs. 5,66,660/-. learned district judge has reduced this figure of average market value by 60%, to work out the wholesale market value, though in the award of the district judge it is wrongly written that reduction is by 40%.9. learned district judge has not believed the evidence adduced by the appellant for the reasons aforesaid. the aforesaid reasons are borne out from the testimony of rw-1 jogu ram, who sold 2 biswas of land for rs. 8000/-, vide sale deed ext.rw1/1, rw-2 bhagat ram, who sold 8 biswas of land for rs. 10,000/- and rw-3 smt. nirmla devi, who purchased 2 biswas of land from her father for rs. 7500/-, vide sale deed ext.rw3/a.10. rw-1 jogu ram, in his cross-examination, stated that he was in dire need of money, because he wanted to get his eyes operated upon and that had this need not been there, he would not have sold his land at such a low rate. in the cross-examination, he admitted that the land close to the road was fetching rs. 1.5 lac per biswa. rw-2 bhagat ram stated that as a matter of fact he had sold the land at the rate of rs. 25,000/- per biswa to durga singh, but to evade stamp duty and registration charges, the price was mentioned as rs. 10,000/- only, for 8 biswas of land. he also stated that the land which he sold was situated at a distance of 2 1/2 kilometers from the acquired land of the respondents and that the acquired land was situated close the national highway, at a distance of only 1/2 kilometer. rw-3 nirmla devi stated that the land purchased by her was also situated 2 1/2 kilometers away from the acquired land towards hill and that her father had not in fact charged any price from her and the land was given to her by way of gift.11. in view of the above discussed evidence, it cannot be said that the learned district judge has committed any error in rejecting the evidence of the appellant. as already noticed, it is not in dispute that the land sold through the three sale deeds, proved by the respondents, is situated near the acquired land. also, it is proved from the testimony of pw-2 smt. jagdish kaur that she had received the price mentioned in sale deeds exts. pw2/a and pw2/b. the transactions evidenced by these two documents had taken place much prior to the issuance and publication of the notifications for acquisition of the land, in question. therefore, there should be no reason to doubt their genuineness.12. in view of the above stated position, i find no merit in the present appeals. the same are, therefore, dismissed.all appeals stand disposed of.