1 ( 2026:HHC:2033 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

RFA No.825 of 2012 a/w RFAs

No.826 to 838 & 929 to 951/ 2012

Reserved on : 20.12.2025

Date of Decision : 07.01.2026

_____________________________________________________

1. RFA No.825 of 2012

General Manager Parbati Hydro Electric

Project, NHPC & another

....Appellants

Versus

Kishan Chand and another

…Respondents

_____________________________________________________

2. RFA No.826 of 2012

General Manager Parbati Hydro Electric

Project, NHPC & another

....Appellants

Versus

Prema Devi and another

…Respondents

_____________________________________________________

3. RFA No.827 of 2012

General Manager Parbati Hydro Electric

Project, NHPC & another

....Appellants

Versus

Jai Singh and others

…Respondents

_____________________________________________________

4. RFA No.828 of 2012

General Manager Parbati Hydro Electric

Project, NHPC & another

....Appellants

Versus

Tharwan Lal and another

…Respondents

_____________________________________________________

2 ( 2026:HHC:2033 )

5. RFA No.829 of 2012

General Manager Parbati Hydro Electric

Project, NHPC & another

....Appellants

Versus

Dinesh Kumar and another

…Respondents

_____________________________________________________

6. RFA No.830 of 2012

General Manager Parbati Hydro Electric

Project, NHPC & another

....Appellants

Versus

Mohar Singh and another

…Respondents

_____________________________________________________

7. RFA No.831 of 2012

General Manager Parbati Hydro Electric

Project, NHPC & another

....Appellants

Versus

Raghuvir Singh and another

…Respondents

_____________________________________________________

8. RFA No.832 of 2012

General Manager Parbati Hydro Electric

Project, NHPC & another

....Appellants

Versus

Dola Ram (deceased) through LR Bimla Devi and another

…Respondents

_____________________________________________________

9. RFA No.833 of 2012

General Manager Parbati Hydro Electric

Project, NHPC & another

....Appellants

Versus

Jai Singh and another

…Respondents

_____________________________________________________

3 ( 2026:HHC:2033 )

10. RFA No.834 of 2012

General Manager Parbati Hydro Electric

Project, NHPC & another

....Appellants

Versus

Dola Ram (deceased) through LR and others

…Respondents

_____________________________________________________

11. RFA No.835 of 2012

General Manager Parbati Hydro Electric

Project, NHPC & another

....Appellants

Versus

Teja Singh and others

…Respondents

_____________________________________________________

12. RFA No.836 of 2012

General Manager Parbati Hydro Electric

Project, NHPC & another

....Appellants

Versus

Mohar Singh and another

…Respondents

__________________________________________________

13. RFA No.837 of 2012

General Manager Parbati Hydro Electric

Project, NHPC & another

....Appellants

Versus

Kishan Chand and others

…Respondents

__________________________________________________

14. RFA No.838 of 2012

General Manager Parbati Hydro Electric

Project, NHPC & another

....Appellants

Versus

Balasu Devi and another

…Respondents

____________________________________________________

4 ( 2026:HHC:2033 )

15. RFA No.948 of 2012

Prema Devi

....Appellant

Versus

Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC and others

…Respondents

___________________________________________________

16. RFA No.949 of 2012

Raghuvir Singh

....Appellant

Versus

Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC and others

…Respondents

__________________________________________________

17. RFA No.950 of 2012

Dola Ram (deceased) through his sold

legal representative Smt. Bimla Devi

....Appellant

Versus

Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC and others

…Respondents

__________________________________________________

18. RFA No.951 of 2012

Jai Singh

....Appellant

Versus

Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC and others

…Respondents

_____________________________________________________

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge

Whether approved for reporting?

1

_______________________________________________

For the appellant(s) : Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for the

appellant(s)/ beneficiary in RFAs

No.825 to 838/2012 and for the

respondent(s)-PHEP in RFAs No.948 to

951/2012.

1. Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

5 ( 2026:HHC:2033 )

Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Abhjjeet Singh Chauhan &

Mr.Paras Dhaulta, Advocates, for the

appellant(s)/claimant(s) in RFAs No.948

to 951/2012 and for the private

respondent(s) in RFAs No.825 to 838/

2012.

For the respondents :Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Mr. Amandeep Singh

Sharma, Additional Advocates General

with Ms. Archna Negi, Deputy Advocate

General, for the respondent(s)-State in all

the appeals.

_______________________________________________

Sushil Kukreja, Judge

Since all these appeals are the off-shoots of common

award relating to land situated in Phati Manyashi, Dushar, Kothi

Banogi, Sub-Tehsil Sainj, District Kullu, HP, which was acquired

through notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act

(for short “the Act”), for construction of Sainj bye-pass road by

Parvati Hydro Electric Project (for short, ‘PHEP’), Stage-III in Sainj

Valley, hence, they are taken up together and being disposed of

by a common judgment.

2. By way of the instant appeals filed under Section 54

of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), the

beneficiary-PHEP as also the claimants have assailed the

common award dated 30.04.2012, passed by the learned

Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu, H.P. (for short

‘the Reference Court’).

6 ( 2026:HHC:2033 )

3. The facts, in brief, are that a notification under Section

4 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 25.08.2007 was issued for

acquiring the land of the claimants and other persons, situated in

Phati Manyashi, Dushar, Kothi Banogi, Sub-Tehsil Sainj, District

Kullu, HP for construction of Sainj bye-pass road by Parbati Hydro

Electric Project (PHEP), Stage-III in Sainj Valley, which was

published in Rajpatra on 05.09.2007 and in Punjab Kesri and the

Tribune on 26.09.2007 and 06.11.2007 respectively. Roznamcha

regarding publicity notification under Sections 6 and 7 was

published in Danik Jagran and Hindustan Times on 14.02.2008

and 11.02.2008. After detailed inquiry, the Land Acquisition

Collector had assessed the market value of the land taking into

consideration the rates prevalent in Manyashi Phati, being the

highest rates. Different types of rates were awarded for different

types of land and 10% enhancement was given to the land located

adjacent to the road.

4. The-claimants-petitioners feeling aggrieved and

dissatisfied with the said award, preferred reference petitions

under Section 18 of the Act with the prayer that the matters be

referred to the learned District Judge, Kullu, HP for enhancement

of compensation.

7 ( 2026:HHC:2033 )

5. The learned Reference Court, vide common award

dated 30.04.2012, partly allowed the reference petitions with costs

and the claimants-petitioners were held entitled to enhanced

compensation at the rate of Rs.31,800/- per biswa in respect of

the acquired land for all categories of land irrespective of its

classification. In addition, the petitioners were also held entitled to

solatium, additional compensation, interest etc. Claimants,

namely, Kishan Lal, Tharwan Lal and Mohar Singh were also held

entitled to compensation of Rs.13,42,000/-, Rs.13,23,000/- and

Rs.31,62,000/-, respectively, for their houses. However, the

reference petitions of claimants, namely, Dola Ram, Raghubir

Singh, Jai Singh and Prema Devi were dismissed on the ground

that they had already been compensated adequately for their

houses.

6. I have heard Ms. Shreya Chauhan, learned counsel

for the appellant(s)/beneficiary, Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, learned

Senior Counsel for the appellant(s)/claimants as well as Mr.Manoj

Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, for the

respondent-State and have also gone through the records.

7. Ms. Shreya Chauhan, learned counsel for the

appellant(s)/beneficiary contended that the learned Reference

Court had not applied the legal provisions applicable in the case in

8 ( 2026:HHC:2033 )

their proper perspective as no enhanced compensation was

payable to the claimants. She also contended that the area of the

acquired land was of different quality and the learned Reference

Court erred in determining the uniform market value of the

acquired land irrespective of the category. She also submitted

that before the formal execution of Parvati Hydro Electric Project

(PHEP), it remained in planning stage for a very long period and

all the residents of the area knew that their land would be

acquired, therefore, the prices of land were inflated by executing

the sale deeds of very small areas of land by rigging up the prices.

She further contended that the award passed by the Reference

Court deserves to be set aside on the ground that the sale

instances relied upon by the Court below pertain to very small

pieces of land and the learned Reference Court erred in not

applying any deduction, whereas at least deduction of 80% should

have been applied as the acquired land runs in hundreds of

bighas whereas the sale instances of only 2 and 3 biswas were

considered.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, learned

Senior Counsel representing the appellants/claimants fairly

submitted that so far as the market value of the land assessed @

Rs.31,800/- per biswa is concerned, the appellants/claimants have

9 ( 2026:HHC:2033 )

no grievance. However, he contended that the learned Reference

Court had failed to appreciate the fact that the land and houses of

the applicants-claimants were acquired in the year 2007 and the

construction of the houses was also not very old, however, this

aspect of the matter had been completely ignored by the learned

Reference Court while rejecting the claim of claimsnts Dola Ram,

Raghubir Singh, Jai Singh and Prema Devi with regard to their

houses. He further contended that they are entitled for

enhancement of compensation with regard to their houses @ 40%

over and above the amount as granted by PWD authorities as

they had applied HP Schedule Rates prevalent for the year 1999.

9. The law mandates that when the State compulsorily

deprives a person of his land for public purpose, by invoking the

provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, he must be paid

compensation in accordance with law, i.e., he must be paid the

true market value of the acquired land. It has been held in a

catena of decisions by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the market

value, as postulated in Section 23(1) of the Act, is deemed to be

the just and fair compensation for the acquired land and that the

words "market value" would be the price of the land prevailing on

the date of publication of the preliminary notification under Section

4(1) of the Act. The acid test for determining the market value of

10 ( 2026:HHC:2033 )

the land is the price, which a willing vendor might reasonably

expect to obtain from a willing purchaser. In determining the

market value, the factors enumerated in Section 23 are to be

taken into consideration. However, there cannot be any

mathematical accuracy in ascertaining the amount of

compensation payable.

10. In Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai (deceased) through

his heirs and LRs and others v. State of Gujarat (1989) 4 SCC

250, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the market value of a

property for the purpose of Section 23 of the Act is the price at

which the property changes hands from a willing seller to a willing

purchaser, but not too an anxious a buyer, dealing at arms length.

The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:

“4.……….The market value of a piece of property for

purpose of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act is stated

to be the price at which the property changes hands from a

willing seller to a willing, but not too anxious a buyer,

dealing at arms length. Prices fetched for similar lands with

similar advantages and potentialities under bona fide

transactions of sale at or about the time of the preliminary

notification are the usual and, indeed the best, evidences of

market value.”

11. In Atma Singh & others vs. State of Haryana &

another (2008) 2 SCC 568, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that

the market value is the price that a willing purchaser would pay to

a willing seller for the property having due regard to its existing

conditions with all its existing advantages and its potential

11 ( 2026:HHC:2033 )

possibilities when led out in most advantages manner, excluding

any advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for which the

property is compulsorily acquired. In considering market value,

disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent

necessity of the purchaser to buy should be disregarded. The

question whether a land has potential value or not, is primarily one

of the facts depending upon its condition, situation, user to which it

is put or is reasonably capable of being put and proximity to

residential, commercial or industrial areas or institutions. The

existing amenities like, water, electricity, possibility of their further

extension, whether near about town is developing or has prospect

of development have to be taken into consideration. The relevant

portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-

“4.……The expression “market value” has been the

subject-matter of consideration by this Court in several

cases. The market value is the price that a willing purchaser

would pay to a willing seller for the property having due

regard to its existing condition with all its existing

advantages and its potential possibilities when led out in

most advantageous manner excluding any advantage due to

carrying out of the scheme for which the property is

compulsorily acquired. In considering market value

disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the

urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy should be

disregarded. The guiding star would be the conduct of

pypothetical willing vendor who would offer the land and a

purchaser in normal human conduct would be willing to buy

as a prudent purchaser in normal human conduct would be

willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market conditions

but not an anxious dealing at arm’s length nor façade of sale

nor fictitious sale brought about in quick succession or

otherwise to inflate the market value.

5. For ascertaining the market value of the land, the

potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into

12 ( 2026:HHC:2033 )

consideration. Potentiality means capacity or possibility for

changing or developing into state of actuality. It is well

settled that market value of a property has to be determined

having due regard to its existing condition with all its

existing advantages and its potential possibility when led

out in its most advantageous manner. The question

whether a land has potential value or not, is primarily one of

fact depending upon its condition, situation, user to which it

is put or is reasonably capable of being put and proximity to

residential, commercial or industrial areas or institutions.

The existing amenities like water, electricity, possibility of

their further extension, whether near about town is

developing or has prospect of development have to be

taken into consideration.”

12. In Union of India vs. Pramod Gupta (dead) by LRs

& others, 2005 (12) SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that

the best method, as is well-known, would be the amount which a

willing purchaser would pay to the owner of the land. In the

absence of any direct evidence, the Court, however, may take

recourse to various other known methods. Evidence admissible

therefor inter alia would be the sale deeds, judgments and awards

passed in respect of acquisitions of lands made in the same

village and/or neighbouring villages. Such a judgment/award in

the absence of any other evidence like deed of sale, report of the

expert and other relevant evidence would have only evidentiary

value. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as

under:

“24.While determining the amount of compensation

payable in respect of the lands acquired by the State, the

market value therefor indisputably has to be ascertained.

There exist different modes therefor.

25.The best method, as is well known, would be the

amount which a willing purchaser would pay to the owner of

13 ( 2026:HHC:2033 )

the land. In absence of any direct evidence, the court,

however,may take recourse to various other known

methods. Evidences admissible therefor inter alia would be

judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisitions of

lands made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages.

Such a judgment and award, in the absence of any other

evidence like the deed of sale, report of the expert and other

relevant evidence would have only evidentiary value.”

13. For ascertaining market value of the acquired land,

the Court can no doubt rely upon such sale transactions, which

would offer a reasonable basis to fix the price, for which purpose,

a sale transaction relating to a smaller parcel of land can be

considered for the purpose of assessing the market value in

respect of a large tract of land, after making appropriate

deductions such as for development of land, for providing space

for roads, sewers, drains, expenses involved in formation of a

layout, lump- sum payments, as well as for the waiting period

required for selling the sites that would be formed and other

expenses involved therein, but before doing so, the evidentiary

value of such a sale deed is required to be carefully scrutinized.

As held in the case of Land Acquisition Officer vs. Nookala

Rajamallu reported as (2003) 12 SCC 334, in order to adopt the

price reflected in the sale deed, the following conditions are

required to be met:-

"9.It can be broadly stated that the element of

speculation is reduced to a minimum if the underlying

principles of fixation of market value with reference to

comparable sales are made:

14 ( 2026:HHC:2033 )

(i) when sale is within a reasonable time of the date of

notification under Section 4(1);

(ii) it should be a bona fide transaction;

(iii) it should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to

the land acquired; and

(iv) it should possess similar advantages

10. It is only when these factors are present, it can

merit a consideration as a comparable case (see Special

Land Acquisition Officer v. T.Adinarayan Setty AIR 1959 SC

429)."

14. It is a settled law that where the entire area is similarly

situated, the value of the land under acquisition is to be assessed

as a single unit irrespective of its classification and nature ignoring

the purpose to which it was being put prior to the acquisition, as

well as to the one it is likely to be put thereafter. In Gulabi & etc.

vs. State of H.P., AIR 1998 HP 9, it has been held as under:-

“As a result of this discussion it is held that the market value

of the land on the date of acquisition is Rs.4,000/- per biswa.

In this context it is further held that the value of the land

under acquisition is to be assessed irrespective of its classi-

fication and nature ignoring the purpose to which it was be-

ing put prior to the acquisition, as well as to the one it is

likely to be put thereafter, Consequently, the appellants are

held entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per

biswa uniformally for all qualities of land and it is ordered ac-

cordingly. In taking this view, we are guided by the judgment

of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in Bhagwathula

Samanna and others Vs. Special Tahsildar and Land Acqui-

sition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality, and the relevant

abstracts from the said judgment are as under (paras 7, 11,

13):--

“In awarding compensation in acquisition pro-

ceedings, the Court has necessarily to determine

the market value of the land as on the date of

the relevant Notification. It is useful to consider

the value paid for similar land at the material time

under genuine transactions. The market value

envisages the price which a willing purchaser

may pay under bona fide transfer to a willing

seller. The land value can differ depending upon

15 ( 2026:HHC:2033 )

the extent and nature of the land sold. A fully de-

veloped small plot in a important locality may

fetch a higher value than a larger area in an un-

developed condition and situated in a remote lo-

cality. By comparing the price shown in the trans-

actions all variables have to be taken into consid-

eration. The transaction in regard to smaller prop-

erty cannot, therefore, be taken as a real basis for

fixing the compensation for larger tracts of prop-

erty. In fixing the market value of a large property

on the basis of a sale transaction for smaller

property, generally a deduction is given taking

into consideration the expenses required for

development of the larger tract to make smaller

plots within that area in order to compare with the

small plots dealt with under the sale transaction.

The principle of deduction in the land value covered by

the comparable sale is thus adopted in order to arrive

at the market value of the acquired land. In applying the

principle it is necessary to consider all relevant facts. It

is not the extent of the area covered under the acquisi-

tion, the only relevant factor. Even in the vast area

there may be land which is fully developed having all

amenities and situated in an advantageous position. If

smaller area within the large tract is already developed

and suitable for building purposes and have in its vicin-

ity roads, drainage, electricity, communications etc.,

then the principle of deduction simply for the reason

that it is part of the large tract acquired, may not be jus-

tified.

The proposition that large area of land cannot possibly

fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are

sold is not absolute proposition and in given circum-

stances it would be permissible to take into account the

price fetched by the small plots of land. If the larger

tract of land because of advantageous position is ca-

pable of being used for the purpose for which the

smaller plots are used and is also situated in a devel-

oped area with little or no requirement of further devel-

opment, the principle of deduction of the value for pur-

pose of comparison is not warranted.

In the instant case it has been satisfactorily shown on

the evidence on record that the land has facilities of

road and other amenities and is adjacent to a devel-

oped colony and in such circumstances it is possible to

utilize the entire area in question as house sites. In re-

spect of the land acquired for the road, the same ad-

vantages are available and it did not require any further

development. Therefore, no deduction could be made

on ground, that large tract of land is required.”

16 ( 2026:HHC:2033 )

15. In Land Acquisition Officer vs. L Kamalamma,

(1998) 2 SCC 385, H.P. Housing Board vs. Ram Lal & others,

2003(3) Sim.L.C. 64 and Executive Engineer & Anr. Vs. Dilla

Ram, Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 1007), it was held that when the

entire land acquired belongs to one block, classification of the

same into different categories is not reasonable. In case acquired

land is to be used/developed as a single unit for a purpose having

no relevancy with quality of land, the classification of land

completely loses its significance.

16. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid authoritative

pronouncements of law, the contention of the learned counsel for

the appellants-claimants that the learned Reference Court has

erred in awarding uniform rate for the entire land by ignoring the

classification and nature of the land deserves to be rejected, as in

the instant case also the land has been acquired as the single unit

for the public purpose, i.e., for construction of Sainj bye-pass road

by Parvati Hydro Electric Project, Stage-III.

17. In the instant case, the petitioners/claimants have

relied on sale deed Ext.PW5/A, dated 02.01.2003 regarding two

biswas of land, situated in Phati Manyashi, for a consideration of

Rs.1,21,000/-. They have also relied upon the sale deed

17 ( 2026:HHC:2033 )

Ext.PW6/A, dated 28.05.2007, regarding three biswas of land,

situated in Phati Dushad Kothi Banogi for a sum of Rs.1,80,000/-.

There is nothing on the record to show that these transactions

proved by the claimants i.e. sale deeds Ext.PW5/A and

Ext.PW6/A, were not bona fide. These transactions pertain to the

area where the acquired land is situated and, therefore, they can

be taken into consideration for the determination of the market

value.

18. The appellant(s)-beneficiary had tendered in evidence

Ext. R1 & Ext. R2, the average value of the area during the years

2006-07, and on the basis of the said transaction in the area, the

average value was about Rs.3,600/- per biswa. However, the

aforesaid average values placed on record by the respondents

were rightly not taken into consideration by the learned Reference

Court as in these average values, the transaction was about

Rs.3,600/- per biswa, which is much less than the value of the

land assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector @ Rs.13,875/-

per biswa as per award placed on record. Section 25 of the Act

provides that the amount of compensation awarded by Court shall

not be lower than the amount awarded by the Collector. At this

stage, it would be apt to reproduce Section 25 of the Act which

reads as under:-

18 ( 2026:HHC:2033 )

“Amount of compensation awarded by Court not to

be lower than the amount awarded by the Collector.

The amount of compensation awarded by the Court

shall not be less than the amount awarded by the

Collector under Section 11.”

19. Therefore, in view of Section 25 of the Act, no fault can

be found with the findings recorded by the learned Reference

Court to the extent that it had not taken into consideration the

average value of the area Ext. R1 & Ext. R2 Hence, on the basis of

sale deeds Ext.PW5/A and Ext. PW6/A, the learned Reference

Court rightly held that the petitioners/claimants would be entitled

for uniform market value @ Rs.31,800/- per biswa, irrespective of

the classification of the land.

20. The learned counsel for the appellant(s)-beneficiary

further contended that the award passed by the Reference Court

deserves to be set aside on the ground that the sale instances

relied upon by the Court below pertain to very small pieces of land

and the learned Reference Court erred in not applying any

deduction, whereas at least deduction of 80% should have been

applied as the acquired land runs in hundreds of bighas whereas

the sale instances of only 2 and 3 biswas were considered.

However,this contention of learned counsel for the appellant(s)-

beneficiary that deduction @ 80% was required to be made is

devoid of any merits as the amount to the extent of 33-1/3% has

19 ( 2026:HHC:2033 )

rightly been deducted by the learned Reference Court in the light of

the evidence led by the parties while assessing the market value of

the land in question.

21. Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, learned Senior Counsel

representing the claimants fairly submitted that so far as the market

value of the land assessed @ Rs.31,800/- per biswa is concerned,

the appellants/claimants have no grievance. However, he

contended that the learned Reference Court has erroneously

rejected the claim of the claimants, namely, Dola Ram, Raghubir

Singh, Jai Singh & Prema Devi, for enhancement of their claim with

regard to their houses and failed to appreciate the valuation reports

in respect of their houses. He further contended that the houses

were constructed in the year 2006, but the valuation was made by

the PWD authorities on the basis of H.P. Schedule Rates prevalent

for the year 1999 as such, the claimants were entitled for 40%

increase over the value as estimated by the PWD authorities.

22. In Union of India Vs. Savjiram and another,

(2004) 9 SCC 312, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

that the compensation payable in respect of the house has to be

calculated by taking into consideration the cost of construction at the

rates prevalent at the time of assessment of the compensation by

working out the current value of the materials and that there is no

20 ( 2026:HHC:2033 )

scope for any further deduction within the value of the

house/building so assessed. Relevant portion of the judgment reads

as under:-

“9.A bare reading of para 44 shows that it is a method of

calculation indicated relating to the computation of the

compensation. The compensation for houses and buildings

are required to be calculated on (a) the present value of

materials (b) in addition to the cost of construction at present

rates. Both the components for working out the

compensation relate to present value of the materials and

cost of construction at present rates less the value of any

materials made over to the proprietor. Obviously, the

calculation has to be done on the basis of the present value

or the present rates, as the case may be. The expression

present means in existence at the time at which something

is spoken or written, being in a specified place, thing.

Grammatically it means denoting a tense of verbs used

when the action or event described is occurring at the time

of utterance or when the speaker does not wish to make any

explicit temporal reference. It also means the time being,

now. Commonly, it denotes existence of a particular thing or

a matter at the time of consideration. Obviously therefore

after arriving at the cost of construction at the prevalent rate

at the time of fixing the compensation or working out the

value of the materials there is no scope for making any

further deduction.”

23. Further in National Hydro Electric Power Corp. vs.

Smt. Sumundari & others, 2007(3) S.L.J. (H.P.) 2021, taking into

consideration the value of the houses so assessed on the basis of

1987 schedule of rates whereas the property was acquired vide

notification dated 13.6.1992, under Section 4 of the Act, a co-

ordinate bench of this court approved the increase to the extent of

50% on the market value of the houses so assessed by the District

Judge. Para-16 of the judgment is reproduced as under:-

“16. It is common knowledge that there is general trend

of increase in cost of construction. The State has acquired

21 ( 2026:HHC:2033 )

land and structures under different notifications for

construction of reservoir of Chamera Dam. In RFA No.72

of 1998, along with RFAs No.75, 56 and 63 of 1998

decided on 30.5.2007 and RFA No.127 of 1998 decided on

1

st

June, 2007, this Court has approved 50% increase in

market value of the structures over and above the 1987

schedule of rates. The land and structures in those cases

were also acquired for construction of reservoir of

Chamera Project on the basis of notifications under

Section 4 of the Act dated 6.6.1992 and 16.6.1992. In the

present case, the notification under Section 4 is of

13.6.1992, therefore, 50% increase given by the District

Judge for assessing the market value of the structures over

and above the 1987 schedule of rates is just, reasonable

and not arbitrary. The claimants/ petitioners have not

otherwise independently proved that at the time of

notification under Section 4 of the Act what was the value

of their superstructure standing on the acquired land.”

24. In a similar situation, in RFA No.374 of 2021, titled

Vikal Sood & another Vs. Collector Land Acquisition NHPC

Parati Hydro Electric Project Largi & others, decided on

December 8, 2016,the structure was constructed in the year 2006 and

the acquisition proceedings commenced in the year 2007, but it came to

be assessed on the basis of the H.P. Schedule Rates, prevalent for the

year 1999; a co-ordinate bench of this Court while relying upon

Sumundari’ case (supra) held that the market value of the

superstructure had to be assessed on the basis of schedule rates

prevalent for the year 2007 and not 1999. Paras-5 and 7 of the judgment

read as under:-

“5. It is not in dispute that the super-structure came to be

assessed by the Government officials on the basis of the

H.P. Schedule Rates, prevalent for the year 1999; the

structure came to be constructed in the year 2006; and the

acquisition proceedings commenced immediately thereafter

in the year 2007 as the notification under Section 4 of the

Land Acquisition Act came to be published on 05.09.2007.

22 ( 2026:HHC:2033 )

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

7. The market value of the superstructure had to be on the

basis of schedule rates prevalent for the year 2007 and not

1999. Hence it cannot be said that escalation by 40% is on

the higher side. As such, keeping in view the ratio of law

laid down by this Court in Sumundari’s case (supra), the

amount towards super-structure stands redetermined and

enhanced by 40%.”

25. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the

houses/super-structures of the claimants, namely, Dola Ram,

Raghubir Singh, Jai Singh and Prema Devi, came to be

constructed in the year 2006 and the acquisition proceedings

commenced immediately thereafter in the year 2007 as the

notification under Section 4 of the Act came to be published on

05.09.2007, but the value thereof was assessed by PWD

authorities on the basis of the H.P. Schedule Rates, prevalent for

the year 1999.Therefore, keeping in view the ratio laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Savjiram’s case (supra) as well as this

Court in Sumundari’s and Vikal Sood’s cases (supra), the market

value of the houses of claimants Dola Ram, Raghubir Singh, Jai

Singh and Prema Devi, has to be assessed on the basis the

schedule rates prevalent in the year 2007 and not on the basis of

the year 1999, as such, the market value towards their houses

stands re-determined and enhanced by 40%.

26. Hence, in view of what has been discussed

hereinabove and also considering the above stated settled

23 ( 2026:HHC:2033 )

principles of law, the appeals preferred by the appellants/

beneficiary, being RFAs No.825 to 838 of 2012 are dismissed,

whereas the appeals being RFAs No.948 to 951 of 2012, preferred

by the appellants/claimants, i.e. Dola Ram, Raghubir Singh, Jai

Singh and Prema Devi,, are partly allowed only to the extent that

the they shall also be entitled to 40% enhanced amount towards

their houses/superstructures. Consequently, the impugned award

dated 30.04.2012, passed by learned Additional District Judge,

Fast Track Court, Kullu, District Kullu, HP, is modified accordingly.

The remaining part of the award does not require any interference.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

(Sushil Kukreja)

January 07, 2026 Judge

(V.Himalvi)