High Court of H.P.IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,

SHIMLA.

RFA No.6 of 2008 alongwith

RFAs No. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,

14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and

22 of 2008

Reserved on: 25.11.2014

Decided on : 26.11.2014

___________________________________________________

1. RFA No. 6/2008

Collector, Land Acquisition, National Hydro Electric Power

Corporation.

…Appellant.

Versus

Bhagwan Dass and others. …Respondents.

2. RFA No. 8/2008

Collector, Land Acquisition, National Hydro Electric Power

Corporation

…Appellant.

Versus

Chet Ram (died) through LRs and others. …Respondents

3. RFA No. 9/2008

Collector, Land Acquisition, National Hydro Electric Power

Corporation

…Appellant.

Versus

Purva Devi and others. …Respondents

4. RFA No. 10/2008

Collector, Land Acquisition, National Hydro Electric Power

Corporation

…Appellant.

Versus

Dote Ram and others. …Respondent.

5. RFA No. 11/2008

Collector, Land Acquisition, National Hydro Electric Power

Corporation

…Appellant.

Versus

::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 19:54:22 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 2

Dile Singh (died) through LRs and others.

…Respondents.

6. RFA No. 12/2008

Collector, Land Acquisition, National Hydro Electric Power

Corporation

…Appellant.

Versus

Chet Ram and others. …Respondents.

7. RFA No. 13/2008

Collector, Land Acquisition, National Hydro Electric Power

Corporation

…Appellant.

Versus

Hukami and others. …Respondents.

8. RFA No. 14/2008

Collector, Land Acquisition, National Hydro Electric Power

Corporation

…Appellant.

Versus

Dot Ram and others. …Respondents.

9. RFA No. 15/2008

Collector, Land Acquisition, National Hydro Electric Power

Corporation

…Appellant.

Versus

Narayan Chand alias Narayan Singh and others.

…Respondents.

10. RFA No. 17/2008

Collector, Land Acquisition, National Hydro Electric Power

Corporation

…Appellant.

Versus

Raghubir Singh and others. …Respondents.

11. RFA No. 18/2008

Collector, Land Acquisition, National Hydro Electric Power

Corporation

…Appellant.

Versus

::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 19:54:22 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 3

Tej Ram and others. …Respondents.

12. RFA No. 19/2008

Collector, Land Acquisition, National Hydro Electric Power

Corporation

…Appellant.

Versus

Sher Singh and others. …Respondents.

13. RFA No. 20/2008

Collector, Land Acquisition, National Hydro Electric Power

Corporation

…Appellant.

Versus

Tek Chand and others. …Respondents.

14. RFA No. 21/2008

Collector, Land Acquisition, National Hydro Electric Power

Corporation

…Appellant.

Versus

Prem Chand and others. …Respondents.

15. RFA No. 22/2008

Collector, Land Acquisition, National Hydro Electric Power

Corporation

…Appellant.

Versus

Jave Ram and others. …Respondents.

____________________________________________________________

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

1

Yes

For the Appellant : Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Rajnish Maniktala and Mr. Yudhvir Singh

Thakur, Advocates.

For the Respondents: Mr. Parmod Thakur, Addl. A.G. with

Mr. Neeraj K.Sharma, Dy. A.G. and Mr.

R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. for the

respondent-State in all the appeals.

1

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 19:54:22 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 4

Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala and Mr. Sunil

Mohan Goel, Advocates for the

respective respondents.

_____________________________________________________

Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.

Since common questions of law and facts are

involved in all these appeals, the same were taken up

together for hearing and are being disposed of by a

common judgment.

2. These appeals are instituted against the award

dated 29.9.2007 rendered by the Additional Di strict

Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu in Reference Petitions No.

67/2003 6/2004, 68/2003 7/2004, 70/2003 9/2004,

71/2003 10/2004, 80/2003 15/200 4, 79/2003 16/2004,

76/2003 17/2004, 77/2003 18/2004, 78/2003 19/2004,

81/2003 20/2004, 82/2003 21/200 4, 83/2003 22/2004,

28/2003 38/2004, 27/2003 39/2004 , 26/2003 40/2004,

29/2003 41/2004 and 30/2003 42/2004.

3. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of

these appeals are that a notification under section 4 of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 5.12.2 000

whereby it was proposed to acquire the land situated in

Phati Dhaugi, Sub-Tehsil Sainj for the construction of

Parbati Hydro Electric Project. After the completion of the

procedural formalities under sections 6 and 7 of the Land

::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 19:54:22 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 5

Acquisition Act, 1894, the Land Acquisition Officer-Sub

Divisional Officer (Civil), Kullu announced the award on

4.1.2002. Respondents-claimants (hereinafter referred to

as the “claimants” for convenience sake) dissatisfied with

the award of the Land Acquisition Collector preferred

Reference Petitions under section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act before the Land Acquisition Collector.

According to the averments contained in the reference

petitions, the market value of the land has not been

determined in accordance with law and t he same was

liable to be modified and enhanced. According to the

claimants, land was situated near Sainj Bazaar, which

was market centre of the area. The land has potential of

raising orchards, growing vegetables, construction of

commercial buildings and hotels. According to them, the

market value of the land was not less than ten lakhs per

bigha at the time of issuance of notification under section

4 of the Land Acquisition Act.

4. According to the appellant, the land was not

situated near Sainj Bazaar and the same was not the

marketing centre of the area. No commercial activities

were expected in or around the area. Due, adequate and

reasonable compensation has been paid to the claimants.

::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 19:54:22 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 6

It was denied that the value of the land was ` 10 lakhs per

bigha.

5. Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track

Court, Kullu, after appreciating the oral as well as

documentary evidence held the claimants entitled for the

grant of ` 20,000/- per biswa (` 4 lakhs per bigha)

irrespective of nature, kind and classification of acquired

land. The claimants were also held entitled to statutory

benefits. Hence, the present appeals.

6. Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, learned Senior Advocate

for the appellant has vehemently argued that the

Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, has wrongly

assessed the market value of the land at ` 20,000/- per

biswa. He then contended that the Additional District

Judge has taken into consideration the value of the small

plots. He has also contended that the sale deed s

produced by appellant, i.e. Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-11 have not

been taken into consideration.

7. Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate and Mr. Sunil

Mohal Goel, Advocate have supported the award dated

29.9.2007.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties

and have gone through the award and records

meticulously.

::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 19:54:22 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 7

9. The notification under section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 5.12.2000. The

award has been made by the Land Acquisition Collector-

cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Kullu on 4.1.2002. The

land has been acquired for the construction of Parbati

Hydro Electric Project. The acquired land is situated at

Phati Dhaugi.

10. PW-1 Tej Singh has testified that the lands of

the claimants were situated in Phati Dhaugi. The lands

were adjacent to Sainj Bazaar. These were acquired by

National Hydro Electric Power Corporation for the

construction of colony of Parwati Project. The lands were

situated by the side of Aut-Sainj road. The value of the

acquired lands was more than 10 lakhs per bigha.

However, the Land Acquisition Collector has assessed the

value of acquired lands inadequately. There were shops,

residential houses, hotels, rest house, schools, dispensary

and bank adjacent to the acquired land. Lands have been

reserved by the claimants for the construc tion of

commercial complex. The lands of Bhimi Ram and Khub

Ram etc. had been acquired by the National Hydro Power

Corporation for the construction of colony of Parbati

Project. The award of Collector was challenged before

learned District Judge, Kullu. He has enhanced the

::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 19:54:22 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 8

compensation to ` 20,000/- per biswa. According to him,

compensation has also not been awarded adequately for

the acquired land and for fruit and non-fruiting bearing

trees. He was cross-examined. In his cross-examination,

he has admitted that the acquired land was situated on

the left side of the river. Most of the land falls in Sainj

area. The distance between Sainj and Banjar was 20-25

KMs. The distance between Dhau gi and Sub Tehsil

Headquarters, Sainj is 4 KMs. He has denied that this

area was developed after the acquisition of land by

N.H.P.C.

11. PW-2 Padam Singh has led his evidence by way

of affidavit. It is specifically averred in the affidavit that

on 14.9.2000, he has purchased two biswas of land for `

90,000/- from Yogender Pal. Sale was duly registered. He

has proved copy of sale deed Ex.P-1.

12. PW-3 Prem Chand has also led his evidence by

way of affidavit. According to the averments contained in

the affidavit, he has sold land measuring 0-1-10 bighas for

` 45,000/- to Sh. Kishori Lal. He has proved copy of sale

deed Ex.P-3 and Jamabandi Ex.P-4.

13. PW-4 Prem Chand son of Jagat Ram has also

led his evidence by way of affidavit. According to the

averments contained in the affidavit, on 15.9.2000 he has

::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 19:54:22 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 9

sold two biswas of land for ` 1,00,000/- to Sher Singh.

The copy of sale deed is Ex.P-5 and copy of Jamabandi is

Ex.P-7.

14. The claimants have also tendered in evidence

copy of award No.124/2003 passed by the Additional

District Judge, Fast Track Court Ex.P-7, copy of award

No.84/2003 passed by District Judge, Kullu Ex.P-9 and

copy of award passed by Land Acquisition Collector

Ex.P-11.

15. RW-1 Prabhat Singh has proved sale deeds

dated 29,12,1999, 12.11.1999, 22.2.2000, 2.6.2000,

26.9.2000, 1.2.2000, 24.8.2000, 23.3.2000, 12.1.2000,

30.9.2000 and 23.10.2000 vide Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-11.

16. RW-2 Mohinder Pal Gupta, Junior Engineer

has deposed that there was no water supply in the year

2000-2002 in village Dhaugi.

17. RW-3 Mehar Chand has proved Ex.R -13 to

Ex.R-16. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that

Ex.R-13 to Ex.R-16 are not in his handwriting.

18. RW-4 Kanshi Ram in his cross -examination

has admitted that the acquired land was situated over and

below the Sainj-Aut road and on the Northern side is Sainj

Bazaar. He has also admitted that there were 100 shops

in the Sainj Bazaar.

::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 19:54:22 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 10

19. RW-5 Devender Singh has deposed that the

acquired land was at a distance of half KM from Sainj

Bazaar.

20. The appellant has tendered in evidence copy of

award Ex.R-18.

21. PW-2 Padam Singh has categorically deposed

that he has purchased the land measuring two biswas on

14.9.2000 for a sum of ` 90,000/- from Yongender Pal.

Sale deed was also registered to this effect. The land is

situated in Phati Dhaugi. PW-3 Prem Chand has deposed

that he has sold land measuring 0 -1-10 bighas on

14.9.2000 for a sum of ` 45,000/- to Kishori Lal. It was

duly registered. He has denied the suggestion that the

sale deed was prepared to get the maximum

compensation. PW-4 Prem Chand son of Jagat Ram has

deposed that he has sold land measuring 2 biswas on

15.9.2000 for a consideration of ` one lakh to Sh. Sher

Singh. The sale deed was duly registered. This land is

also situated in Phati Dhaugi. He has denied that the sale

deed was executed by him in a fictitious manner.

22. According to the revenue record, i.e. copy of

Jamabandi Ex.P-2, Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-6, the nature of the

land is Bathal Som, Banzar Kadim and Ropa abal. The

appellant has placed strong reliance upon Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-

::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 19:54:22 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 11

11. These were produced by RW -1 Prabhat Singh,

Registration Clerk, Sub-Tehsil, Sainj. However, the

appellant has not led any tangible evidence to establish

that the sale deeds Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-11 were having same

potentiality, utility, similarity and advantages as o f

acquired land. There is no evidence on record to suggest

even remotely that nature and potentiality of the land was

similar to the land having been sold vide Ex.R -1 to

Ex.R-11. The nature of the land has not been recorded as

per sale deeds Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-11. Thus, the learned

Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court has rightly

discarded the sale deeds Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-11. Some of the

Reference Petitions arising out of the award passed by the

Collector stood already decided by the District Judge,

Kullu and Additional District Judge, Kullu vide Ex.P-9 and

Ex.P-7, respectively. According to awards Ex.P -7 and

Ex.P-9, the market value of the acquired land in village

Phati Dhaugi was assessed at ` 20,000/- per bigha. The

land sold as per sale deeds Ex.P-1, Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-5

relates to 0-2-0, 0-1-10 and 0-2-0 bigha, respectively. The

land acquired for the construction of project in village

Dhaugi was 68-19-00 bighas. Thus, the land acquired

was larger chunk vis-à-vis sale deeds Ex.P-1, Ex.P-3 and

Ex.P-5. Sale deeds Ex.P-1, Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-5 are bona

::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 19:54:22 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 12

fide sale deeds. The land acquired is in the proximity of

the headquarters of Sub-Tehsil, Sainj. The distance

between Aut-Dhaugi is about 20 KMs. Aut is situated on

a National Highway. There are 100 s hops in the Sainj

Bazaar. There is great potentiality for the land to be used

for the purpose of commercial activities. Learned

Additional District Judge on the basis of sale deeds Ex.

P-1, Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-5 has assessed the average value of

the acquired land at ` 41,666/- per biswa, i.e. ` 20,000/-

per biswa. However, the Additional District Judge, after

taking into consideration all the facts, has made necessary

deductions to the extent of 50%. The Additional District

Judge has rightly maintained the parity while determining

the market price of the land by relying upon Ex.P-9 and

Ex.P-7. The land acquired, vide Ex.P-7 and Ex.P-9 was

from the same award made by the Land Acquisition

Collector.

23. Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, learned Senior Advocate

has also argued that example by way of Ex.P-1, Ex.P-3

and Ex.P-5 could not be taken into consideration by the

learned Additional District Judge while determining the

market price of the land. The notification under section 4

of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 5.12.2000. Sale

deeds Ex.P-1, Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-5 are dated 14.9.2000,

::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 19:54:22 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 13

14.9.2000 and 15.9.2000, respectively. These are in close

proximity with the date of issuance of notification under

section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.

24. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers

Ltd. vrs. State of Kerala, reported in (1991) 4 SCC 195,

have held that the compensation should be fair and

reasonable and not arbitrary and unreasonable. Their

lordships have held that when the courts are called upon

to fix the market value of the land the best evidence of the

value of the property is the sale of acquired land to which

claimant himself is a party, in its absence the sales of the

neighbouring lands. The underlying principle to fix a fair

market value with reference to comparable sale is to

reduce the element of speculation. In a comparable sale

the features are: (1) it must be within a reasonable time of

the date of the notification; (2) it should be a bonafide

transaction; (3) it should be a sale of the land acquired or

land adjacent to the land acquired and (4) it should

possess similar advantages. Their lordships have held as

under:

“10. Therefore, the transaction relating to the acquired land of

recent dates or in the neighbourhood lands that possessed of similar

potentiality or fertility or other advantageous features are relevant

pieces of evidence. When the Courts are called upon to fix the

market value of the land in compulsory acquisition, the best

::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 19:54:22 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 14

evidence of the value of property is the sale of the acquired land to

which the claimant himself is a party, in its absence the sales of the

neighbouring lands. In proof of the sale transaction, the relationship

of the parties to the transaction, the market conditions, the terms of

the sale and the date of the sale are to be looked into. These features

would be established by examining either the vendor or vendee and

if they are not available, the attesting witnesses who have personal

knowledge of the transaction etc. The original sale deed or certified

copy thereof should be tendered as evidence. The underlying

principles to fix a fair market value with reference to comparable

sales is to reduce the element of speculation. In a comparable sales

the features are: (1) it must be within a reasonable time of the date

of the notification; (2) it should be a bona fide transaction; (3) it

should be a sale of the land acquired or land adjacent to the land

acquired; and (4) it should possess similar advantages. These should

be established by adduction of material evidence by examining as

stated above the parties to the sale or persons having personal

knowledge of the sale transactions. The proof also would focus on

the fact whether the transactions are genuine and bona fide

transactions. As held by this Court in Collector, Rajgarh v. Hari

Singh Thakur, (1979) 2 SCR 183 : (AIR 1979 SC 472) that fictitious

and unreal transactions of speculative nature brought into existence

in quick succession should be rejected. In that case it was found by

majority that these sale deeds are brought up sales. In Administrator

General of West Bengal v. Collector. Varanasi (1988) 2 SCR 1025,

that the price at which the property fetches would be by a willing

seller to a willing purchaser but not too anxious a buyer, dealing at

arm's length. The prices fetched for similar lands with similar

advantages and potentialities and the bona fide transactions of the

sale at time of preliminary notification are the usual, and indeed the

best, evidence of the market value. Other methods of valuation are

resorted to if the evidence of sale of similar land is not available. The

prices fetched for smaller plots cannot form basis for valuation of

large tracts of land as the two are not comparable properties.

Smaller plots always would have special features like the urgent

need of the buyer, the advantageous situation, the like of the buyer

etc.

17. In Narasingh Rao's case, I have dealt with in paragraph 8

thus: "The object of the inquiry is to bring on record the price

fetched or capable of fetching, the relative situation of the land

acquired and the subject of the sale transaction, their fertility,

suitability, nature of the use to which they are put to, income

::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 19:54:22 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 15

derived or other special distinctive features possessed of by the

respective lands either single or some or all relevant to the facts in

issue. In this process the courts are not mere umpires but to take

intelligent participation and to see whether the counsel on either

side are directing towards this goal or the court itself to intervene in

this regard. "Therefore, it is the paramount duty of the courts of

facts to subject the evidence to close scrutiny, objectively assess the

evidence tendered by the parties on proper considerations thereof in

correct perspective to arrive at reasonable market value. The

attending facts and circumstances in each case would furnish

guidance to arrive at the market value of the acquired lands. The

neighbourhood lands possessed of similar potentialities or same

advantageous features or any advantageous special circumstances

available in each case also are to be taken into account. Thus, the

object of the assessment of the evidence is to arrive at a fair and

reasonable market value of the lands and in that process sometime

trench on the border of the guesswork but mechanical assessment

has to be eschewed. The Judges are to draw from their experience

and the normal human conduct of parties in bona fide and genuine

sale transactions is the guiding star in evaluating evidence.

Misplaced sympathies or undue emphasises solely on the claimants'

right to compensation would place heavy burden on the public

exchequer to which everyone contributes by direct or indirect taxes.

18. In V. R. Katarki v. State of Karnataka, C. A. No. 4392 of

1986, D/- 22-3-1990, decided by Bench of this Court to which one

of us (K. Ramaswamy, J.) is a member, the appellant apart from

other charges, was imputed with misconduct of fixing in his capacity

as Civil Judge at Bagalkot, "higher valuation than was legitimate of

the lands." After conducting enquiry he was dismissed from service

and when he challenged it, the High Court upheld it on the judicial

side. On further appeal., since the appeals against higher valuation

were pending in the High Court, without going into that question,

while confirming the dismissal laid the rule thus: "We would like to

make a special mention of the position that even if that assessment

of valuation is modified or affirmed in an appeal as a part of the

judicial process, the conduct of the judicial officer drawable from an

overall picture of the matter would yet be available to be looked into.

In appropriate. cases it may be opened to draw inferences even from

judicial acts" of the misconduct. The rule of conduct spurned by this

Court squarely put the nail on the official act as a refuge to fix

arbitrary and unreasonable market value and the person concerned

shall not camouflage the official act to a hidden conduct in the

::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 19:54:22 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 16

function of fixing arbitrary or unreasonable compensation to the

acquired land. Equally it is salutary to note that the claimant has

legal and legitimate right to a fair and reasonable compensation to

the land he is deprived of by legal process. The claimant has to be

recompensated for rehabilitation or to purchase similar lands else

where. In some cases for lack of comparable sales it may not be

possible to adduce evidence of sale transactions of the neighbouring

lands possessed of same or similar quality. So insistence of

adduction of precise or scientific evidence would cause disadvantage

to the claimants in not getting the reasonable and proper market

value prevailing on the date of' notification under Section 4(l).

Therefore it is the paramount duty of the Land Acquisition Judge

authority to keep before him always the ev en scales to adopt

pragmatic approach without indulging in facts of imagination" and

assess the market value which is reasonably capable to fetch

reasonable market value. What is fair and reasonable market value

is always a question of fact depending on the nature of the evidence,

circumstances and probabilities in each case, The guiding star

would be the conduct of a hypothetical willing vendor would offer the

lands and a willing purchaser in normal human conduct would be

willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market condition as on

the date of the notification under Sec. 4(1) but not an anxious buyer

dealing at arm's length nor facade of sale or fictitious sales brought

about in quick succession or otherwise to inflate the market value.”

25. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Rishi Pal Singh and others vrs.

Meerut Development Authority and another, reported

in (2006) 3 SCC 205, have held that exemplars of small

plots can be taken into consideration specially when other

relevant or material evidence not available, provided

adequate discount given in that behalf. Their lordships

have held as under:

“5. On merits the learned counsel submits with reference to the

impugned judgment of the High Court that only two reasons have

been given by the High Court for setting aside the order of the

::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 19:54:22 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 17

Reference Court and remanding the case back to it. First reason is

that exemplars relied upon by the Reference Court are of small plots

of land whereas the acquisition is of a large tracts of land i.e. about

180 acres. The second reason given in the impugned judgment for

remand is that exemplars filed by the acquiring authority i.e.

appellants before us, were not considered by the Reference Court.

The learned counsel for the appellants has taken us through the

judgment of the Reference Court to show that both the reasons given

by the High Court in its impugned order are factually incorrect. With

respect to the first reason, that is, exemplars of small plots have

been taken into consideration by the Reference Court, in the first

instance our attention was invited to some judgments of this Court

to urge that there is no absolute bar to exemplars of small plots

being considered provided adequate discount is given in this behalf.

Thus there is no bar in law to exemplars of small plots being

considered. In an appropriate case, specially when other relevant or

material evidence is not available, such exemplars can be considered

after making adequate discount. This is a case in which appropriate

exemplars are not available. The Reference Court has made

adequate discount for taking the exemplars of smaller plots into

consideration. It appears that the attention of the High Court was

not drawn to this part of the judgment of the Reference Court which

has resulted in the High court completely overlooking the relevant

discussion in the judgment of the Reference Court.”

26. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Trishala Jain and another vrs.

State of Uttaranchal and another , reported in (2011) 6

SCC 47, have held that the value of sale of small pieces of

land can be taken into consideration for determining even

the value of a large tract of land but with a rider that the

court while taking such instances into consideration has

to make some deduction keeping in view other attendant

circumstances and facts of that particular case. Their

lordships have held as under:

::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 19:54:22 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 18

“44. It is thus evident from the above enunciated principle that the

acquired land has to be more or less developed land as its developed

surrounding areas, with all amenities and facilities and is fit to be

used for the purpose for which it is acquired without any further

expenditure, before such land could be considered for no deduction.

Similarly the sale instances even of sm aller plots could be

considered for determining the market value of a larger chunk of

land with some deduction unless, there was comparability in

potential, utilisation, amenities and infrastructure with hardly any

distinction. On such principles each case would have to be

considered on its own merits.

81. It is not in dispute before us that sale instance at serial No. 108

falls in the Revenue Estate of the same Village and as recorded by

the Reference Court, in LA Case No. 121 of 1994, it is situated at a

distance of 1= furlong from the acquired land. The acquired land

belonging to the claimants forms part of Khasra No.39/2 while, in

the same Reveue Estate, the sale instance at serial No. 108 is part of

Khasra No. 410. Thus a sale deed related to a land in such proximity

of time and distance cannot be said to be incomparable sale

instance, i.e. it has to be taken as a comparable sale instance.

Though it relates to the sale of a smaller plot of land but is certainly

bigger than the land sold by the claimants between themselves. Its

location and potential, if not identical in absolute terms, is certainly

comparable for the purposes of determining market value of the land

in question.

82. It is a well established principle that the value of sale of small

pieces of land can be taken into consideration for determining even

the value of a large tract of land but with a rider that the Court while

taking such instances into consideration has to make some

deduction keeping in view other attendant circumstances and facts

of that particular case. We have already held that keeping in view

the surrounding developed areas and location and potential of the

land it will meet the ends of justice if 10% deduction is made from

the estimated market value of the acquired land.”

27. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Bilkis and others vrs. State of

Maharashtra and others, reported in (2011) 12 SCC

::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 19:54:22 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 19

646, have held that the following factors are required to

be considered for determining compensation:

(i) Conversion of acquired land into non-

agricultural land;

(ii) Potential for which land was reasonably capable of being

used;

(iii) Existence of some structures;

(iv) Proximity to highway.

28. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of R. Sarangapani vrs. Special

Tahsildar Karur Dindigul Broadguage Line, reported

in (2011) 14 SCC 177, have held that in absence of any

other exemplars, small pieces of land can be taken into

consideration after applying appropriate deduction. Their

lordships have held as under:

“19. Equally erroneous is the approach adopted by the High Court in

fixing market value of the remaining land. Although, the appellants'

argument that the Reference Court should not have segregated land

covered by the trees for the purpose of fixing market value of the

remaining land may not be acceptable because once market value of

the trees was separately fixed, there could be no justification for

clubbing the two types of land for the purpose of fixing market value,

the High Court committed serious error by ignoring the two sale

instances - Ext. A4 and A5 and, at the same time, applying 1/3 rd

cut. It is true that the two sale instances related to a small parcel of

land but, in the absence of any other exemplar, such sale instance

could be relied upon for the purpose of fixing market value of the

acquired land, on which trees had not been planted, after applying

an appropriate cut. By Ext.A4 dated 8.9.1982, 21 cents land was

sold for a sum of Rs.41,500/-. The same piece of land was sold vide

Ext. A5 dated 6.7.1983 at the same price, i.e. Rs.41,500/ -. The

notification under Section 4(1) was published on 30.5.1984. If the

rule of escalation in the land price evolved by this Court is applied,

then a minimum increase of 10% is to be added to the price specified

in Ext. A5. Thus, as on the date of Section 4(1) notification, the

::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 19:54:22 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 20

approximate value of 21 cents land would be Rs.45,550/ -. This

would be equivalent to approximately Rs.2,169/ - per cent and

Rs.2,27,750/- per acre. Though, the respondent did not produce any

evidence to show the amount, which was likely to be spent on

making the land useful for the purpose of laying Broad Gauge Line,

if 1/3rd cut applied by the High Court is considered reasonable in

view of the principles laid down by this Court in Kasturi v. State of

Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 354, which were reiterated in Tejumal

Bhojwani v. State of U.P. (2003) 10 SCC 525, V. Hanumantha Reddy

v. Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer (2003) 12 SCC

642, H.P. Housing Board v. Bharat S. Negi (2004) 2 SCC 184 and

Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority (2004) 10 SCC

745, market value of the acquired land will be about Rs.1,50,000/-

per acre.

20. We also agree with Shri Nageswara Rao that the appellants

should be given the benefit of the principles laid down by the

Constitution Bench in Sunder v. Union of India (supra). It appears

that attention of the High Court was not drawn to that judgment else

it would have, in all probability, extended the benefit of th at

judgment to the appellants.

21. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgments

are set aside and the award passed by the Reference Court is

restored with modification that the appellants shall be entitled to

interest on the enhanced amount with effect from 11.3.1985, i.e. the

date on which possession of land was taken by the Railway

Department. They shall also be entitled to interest on solatium and

additional amount in terms of the judgment in Sunder v. Union of

India (supra). The respondent is directed to pay the balance amount

of compensation and interest to the legal representatives of the

landowners within a period of 3 months from the date of

receipt/production of copy of this judgment.”

29. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Digamber and others vrs. State of

Maharashtra and others, reported in (2013) 14 SCC

406, have reiterated that the Land Acquisition Collector

is required to keep in mind the following factors:

(i) Existing geographical situation of the land.

::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 19:54:22 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 21

(ii) Existing use of the land.

(iii) Already available advantages, like proximity to National

or State Highway or road and/or developed area.

(iv) Market value of other land situated in the same

locality/village/area or adjacent or very near t he

acquired land.

30. The Additional District Judge has correctly

assessed the market value @ 20,000/ - per biswa and

awarded the statutory benefits by applying the correct

principles.

31. Accordingly, in view of the analysis and

discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the

appeals and the same are dismissed. Pending

application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.

(Justice Rajiv Sharma),

Judge.

26.11.2014

*awasthi*

::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 19:54:22 :::CIS