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

RFA No.182 of 2009 with RFA Nos.

183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189,

190, 191, 192, 193, 194 and 195 of

2009.

Reserved on: May 21, 2014

Decided on: May 27, 2014.

1. RFA No.182 of 2009:

G.M.Northern Railway …..Appellant.

VERSUS

Gulzar Singh & Ors. …..Respondents.

2. RFA No.183 of 2009:

G.M.Northern Railway …..Appellant.

VERSUS

Ashok Kumar & Ors. …..Respondents.

3. RFA No.184 of 2009:

G.M.Northern Railway …..Appellant.

VERSUS

Amrit Lal & Anr. …..Respondents.

4. RFA No.185 of 2009:

G.M.Northern Railway …..Appellant.

VERSUS

Madan Lal & Ors. …..Respondents.

5. RFA No.186 of 2009:

G.M.Northern Railway …..Appellant.

VERSUS

Bhagat Ram & Ors. …..Respondents.

6. RFA No.187 of 2009:

::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2022 13:32:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.

…2…

G.M.Northern Railway …..Appellant.

VERSUS

Gurbachan Singh & Anr. …..Respondents.

7. RFA No.188 of 2009:

G.M.Northern Railway …..Appellant.

VERSUS

Chhaju Ram & Ors …..Respondents.

8. RFA No.189 of 2009:

G.M.Northern Railway …..Appellant.

VERSUS

Rajinder Kumar …..Respondent.

9. RFA No.190 of 2009:

G.M.Northern Railway …..Appellant.

VERSUS

Sardari Lal & Ors. …..Respondents.

10. RFA No.191 of 2009:

G.M.Northern Railway …..Appellant.

VERSUS

Rajinder Kumar & Ors. …..Respondents.

11. RFA No.192 of 2009:

G.M.Northern Railway …..Appellant.

VERSUS

Chet Ram & Ors. …..Respondents.

12. RFA No.193 of 2009:

G.M.Northern Railway …..Appellant.

VERSUS

::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2022 13:32:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.

…3…

Oma Rani & Ors. …..Respondents.

13. RFA No.194 of 2009:

G.M.Northern Railway …..Appellant.

VERSUS

Tilak Raj & Ors. …..Respondents.

14. RFA No.195 of 2009:

G.M.Northern Railway …..Appellant.

VERSUS

Sarla Devi & Ors. …..Respondents.

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

1

Yes.

For the Appellant(s): Mr.Rahul Mahajan, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate for

private respondents in all the

appeals except RFA No.193 of 2009.

Mr.H.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate for

private respondents in RFA No.193

of 2009.

Mr.Shrawan Dogra, Advocate

General with Mr.R.S.Verma,

Additional Advocate General &

Mr.R.M.Bisht, Deputy Advocate

General, for the State-respondent.

Sureshwar Thakur, Judge

The aforementioned appeals arise out of a common

award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Una in

land reference petitions, hence they are being disposed of by a

common judgment.

1

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

::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2022 13:32:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.

…4…

2. The brief facts of the case necessary for deciding

these appeals, are that the lands of the respondents, which

were subjected to acquisition proceedings, are situated at

village Panoh, Tehsil and District Una, H.P. In total, they measure

7-26-75 hectares and were acquired for construction of a

railway line between Nangal Dam to Talwara. All the lands

comprised in the aforementioned appeals are located in the

same village and are contiguous to each other.

3. The Land Acquisition Collector vide common award

dated 10.8.2001 awarded different/vari ant rates of

compensation for different classifications and categories of

lands.

4. The award of the Land Acquisition Collector was

subjected to impeachment by way of the land holders/land

owners preferring reference petitions under Section 18 of the

Land Acquisition Act before the learned District Judge, Una,

who assigned them for adjudication, to the Court of the learned

Additional District Judge, Una. The learned Additional District

Judge, Una, on consideration of the material as laid before him

had enhanced the compensation as awarded by the Land

Acquisition Collector, in the impugned award. The

enhancement of compensation was , on the score of the

learned District Judge, Una, coming to award , uniform

compensation, for all categories of lands or irrespective of their

::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2022 13:32:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.

…5…

classification, while relying upon sale deed comprised in ,

Ex.PW1/C.

5. In the appeals, before this Court, preferred at the

instance of the authority for whom the land was acquired and

on whom the liability to pay compensation as awarded , has

been fastened, it, has been averred that the findings and the

reasons afforded by the learned Additional District Judge, Una

for reaching a conclusion, that the compensation amount

awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector in impugned award,

necessitates enhancement, are infirm, in as much, as: (a) the

learned Additional District Judge, Una having disregarded, as

well, as discarded, the factum of the land subjected to

acquisition bearing different classifications/categories, hence,

qua each of the classifications a corresponding rate of

compensation was entailed to be assessed and no uniform rate

of compensation as assessed by the learned Additional District

Judge, Una, in the award impugned before this Court could be

awarded; (b) the learned Additional District Judge, Una, has

also untenably discarded the probative worth of Ex.R1 to Ex.R3

which comprised instances of sale, contemporaneous to the

issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act, as also, the sale instances of land located in

immediate proximity to the land subjected to compensation.

Hence, when the legally enjoined criteria for theirs being

::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2022 13:32:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.

…6…

reckoned and theirs enjoying probative value has been fulfilled,

in as much, as they satisfied the criteria of proximity from time

angle vis-à-vis the acquired land and also proximity from

location angle vis-à-vis notification for their acquisition, their

evidentiary value having come to be not appreciated , has

occasioned incalculable miscarriage of justice. Even the wide

expanse of land subjected to acquisition, in as much, as when

land measuring 7-26-75 hectares was acquired, hence, the sale

instance relied upon by the learned Additional District Judge,

Una comprised in Ex.PW1/C qua the minimal land, sold therein

comprising 2 kanals, 10 marlas, was not construable to be an

admissible and relevant sale instance or comprising the

relevant parameter for assessing on its strength, the

compensation awarded for the entire land subjected to

acquisition. Even if it assumingly, was a relevant and admissible

legal parameter, for assessing on its strength compensation for

the land subjected to acquisition, yet with the judgments of

Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2011 SC 3178, AIR 2009 SC

1506, (2012)1 SCC 390 and (2011)6 SCC 46, espousing the

salient legal cannon, of deductions being liable to be made

from the total amount of compensation, in case , the sale

instance, as relied upon, for assessing compensation for the land

subjected to acquisition, is, qua land minimal or smaller in size

vis-à-vis the land subjected to acquisition. In other words, it is

::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2022 13:32:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.

…7…

canvassed and contended before this Court that given the

smallness and minimality of size of lands comprised in Ex.PW1/C,

on which reliance was placed, by the learned Additional District

Judge, Una, for on its strength uniformly assess compensation, for

all categories of land subjected to acquisition, it could not,

hence, be a tenable or a relevant parameter for assessing

compensation, for the vast expanse of the land subjected, to

acquisition, unless some deductions were made from the total

amount of compensation assessed qua the entire land, on its

score. However, when the learned Additional District Judge,

Una, has omitted to even while relying upon Ex.PW1/c make

deductions from the amount of compensation assessed qua the

vastness of land subjected to acquisition while relying upon Ex.

PW1/C, hence, he has misdirected himself in law.

6. Lastly, it has been contended that the learned

Additional District Judge has erred in awarding severa nce

charges, in as much, as he has solely relied upon the testimony

of PW-4 Gulzar Singh, who has alone deposed that the

construction of the railway track barred their accessing their

fields on other side of the railway track, whereas, RW-1 Joginder

Singh deposed qua severance having come to accrue to only

two of the land owners, whose testimony ought not to have

been discarded as untenably done . Consequently, no,

::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2022 13:32:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.

…8…

cumulative injury has ensued to the entire body of landowners

from the construction of the railway track.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the

respondents/landowners have contended before this Court that

the impugned award is well reasoned and does not warrant

interference from this Court in the exercise of, its, appellate

jurisdiction.

8. Initially, this Court ought to deal with the legal vigor

of the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant(s)

that the learned Additional District Judge, Una has committed a

legal lapse, in as much, as he has mis-appreciated the

probative worth of sale instances comprised in Exts.R1 to R3. For

the above contention of the learned counsel for the appellant

to garner legal strength and sinew, it was imperative, that firm

and formidable evidence ought to exist on record qua the fact

of the aforesaid instances of sale comprised in the exhibits

aforesaid, enjoying legal sanctity, so as to be rendered

admissible as well as relevant in evidence, in as much , as

cogent evidence ought to exist on record displaying (a) the fact

of their being situated in close proximity to the land subjected to

acquisition; (b) it, too having come to be proved that the sale

instances comprised in Exts. R1 to R3 were contemporaneous to

the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. A

perusal of the evidence on record reveals that the aforesaid

::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2022 13:32:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.

…9…

exhibits were tendered in evidence by the learned counsel

representing the appellants herein, before the learned Court

below. There is lack of evidence on record, demonstrative of

either of the sale exhibits, fulfilling the legally admissible and

relevant criteria for theirs being, hence, reckoned to be

comprising reckonable sale instances for, on their strength,

compensation for the land subjected to acquisition being

assessable, in as much, as there is no evidence qua (1) theirs

being situated in close proximity to the land subjected to

acquisition and (2) evidence qua their execution being

contemporaneous to the issuance of the notification qua the

land subjected to acquisition. Consequently, they do not

constitute either relevant or admissible evidence nor also they

are qualified to be comprising a relevant parameter, for on their

strength, compensation for the land subjected to acquisition,

being assessable. As a corollary, then, theirs being discarded by

the learned Additional District Judge, Una, was legally sagacious

and appreciable.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant

has canvassed with much force and vehemence that the

impugned award rendered by the learned Additional District

Judge, Una, is, besides liable for interference, in as much as, the

learned Court below has unwarrantably and untenably

proceeded to assess a uniform rate of compensation , for all

::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2022 13:32:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.

…10…

categories/classifications of land. Award of compensation, as

such is legally infirm, in as much, as the variant rates borne by

each category of land, was, hence, reckonable for awarding,

as such, varying rates of compensation for each of such varying

categories of land. However, the above contention stands aptly

discountenanced by the learned Court below. It is significant

that the purpose of acquisition for all categories of land is

common to each of them. Therefore, when each of the

categories/classifications of land, come to be subjected to

acquisition for a common and single purpose, the classification

borne by each of the categories of the land subjected to

acquisition, pales into insignificance or is irrelevant, as well as

fades into oblivion. On their being acquired or brought under

acquisition, such classification looses its relevance as they, then,

on acquisition and ultimately being subjected, to, use for the

purpose for which they were acquired , acquire a uniform

potentiality or a uniform classification. Hence, consequently,

assessment of compensation at a uniform rate for different

classifications/categories of land, as done by the learned

Additional District Judge, Una, while upsetting the award

rendered by the Land Acquisition Collector, impugned before it,

who had awarded variant rates of compensation for different

categories/classifications of land, does not constitute any

::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2022 13:32:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.

…11…

palpable or manifest legal error necessitating interference by

this Court.

10. Even previously in judgments reported, in 1997 (2)

SLC 229 and 1998(2) All India Land Acquisition Act LACC (1) SC,

it has been mandated that when the purpose of acquisition is

common, the award of compensation at a uniform rate for

different classification/categories of land, is, tenable. Hence, it

can be forthrightly concluded, that, the award of a uniform rate

of compensation by the learned Additional District Judge Una

for different lands bearing different classifications/categories, is,

not legally infirm, especially when on acquisition they acquire a

uniform potentiality.

11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant

has concerted, to also espouse before this Court, that even

though, reliance upon Ex. PW1/C by the learned Court below, is

not misplaced, in as much, as it fulfilled the relevant enshrined

legal parameter for its invocation/applicability, in as much, as

(i) it being proximate to the land subjected to acquisition, as

also (ii) its execution being contemporaneous to the issuance of

the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.

Nonetheless, he has canvassed that (i) given the largeness or

expanse and immensity/immenseness of size of the land

subjected to acquisition vis-à-vis the area of the land sold/

comprised in Ex.PW 1/C, the market value of the land comprised

::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2022 13:32:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.

…12…

in Ex.PW1/C could not have been, as a whole applied to the

entire land subjected to the acquisition, unless, deductions for

developmental costs as warranted and mandated by the

decisions relied upon by him had been made/accorded. Since,

the learned Additional District Judge, Una omitted to give/make

deductions from the total compensation arrived at/worked out

on the basis of the value of the land sold/comprised in

Ex.PW1/C, whereas, he was enjoined to do so, he has

committed a grave legal error necessitating interference by this

Court.

12. While proceeding to gauge the sinew of the above

contention canvassed before this Court, it is necessary to bear in

mind that the judgments cited in support of the above view

espoused by the learned counsel for the appellant , are

distinguishable, vis-à-vis, the facts at hand, hence, in the humble

view of this Court, not reliable as (a) all the judgments relied

upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, concert to

marshal the view, of, deductions from the lump sum

compensation assessed qua a large tract of land on the score

of market value of a small/minimal piece of land being made.

In other words, the emphasis in the aforesaid citations, is that,

for the market value of small a tract of land to be comprising an

admissible parameter, for, on its strength working out the

compensation for a large tract of land, it is, imperative that

::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2022 13:32:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.

…13…

deductions towards development costs is made. However,

distinguishably in the citations aforesaid, the acquisition was

made for the development of sites for allotment for housing

purpose or for construction of a housing colony or the purpose

of acquisition had an inherent profiteering motive. Therefore,

given the purpose for which the land was acquired , in, the

cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant,

deductions were enjoined to be imperative or necessary, as,

the entity for whom the land was brought under acquisition ,

would be entailed/obliged, to, make the land fit for the purpose

for which it was acquired, in as much, as, such an entity

concomitantly being driven to incur exorbitant expenses,

towards its development for rendering it fit for use. As such,

given the magnified increase in the scale of economies or given

the ultimate manifold increase, in, the scale of economies or

such incurring of exorbitant expenses on development, hence,

acquiring the capacity to proportionately reduce their profit, as

such, rendering the project for which the land was acquired

financially viable, or, to obviate the losses accruing from the

steep rates of compensation as may be awarded that

deductions were permitted. In other words, deduction from

compensation mandated to not render the venture and the

purpose for which the land was acquired, in the aforesaid

citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, to

::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2022 13:32:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.

…14…

be financially un-whole some, as well as, unviable. More so,

when the land is acquired for State holdings, building/housing

agency(ies) or the agencies carrying out and engaged in

profiteering work. However, in contra distinction, to the facts of

the judgments, as relied upon by the learned counsel for the

appellant, in the instant case, the land has been subjected to

acquisition, for the purpose of construction of a railway track. In

the appellant engaging itself in the construction of a railway

track, it has assumed the role of doing so, as, a welfare measure

and not as a profiteering measure. The railway track would

continue to be owned by the appellant, in distinction to the

facts of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for

the appellant, where the agency for whom the land was

subjected to acquisition, would on developing the land, sell it

further or gain profit. (b) The appellant has omitted to adduce

cogent evidence on record displaying the fact that each of the

land holder, whose land was subjected to acquisition was

holding a vast expanse of land. Omission to adduce into

evidence such proof demonstrative of each of the land holders,

whose land was subjected to acquisition, owing a wide expanse

or a large sized holding, vis-à-vis, the sale transaction comprised

in Ex. PW1/C, a firm conclusion can be formed, that, the size of

the holding or the size of the land of the each of the land

holders, whose land was subjected to acquisition was more or

::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2022 13:32:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.

…15…

less equal to or not disproportionately larger in size to the area of

the land comprised in Ex.PW1/C. Hence, there was no

jurisdictional error, on the part of the learned Additional District

Judge, Una, in not affording deduction, given the smallness in

size of the land comprised, in, Ex.PW1/C, vis-à-vis, the lands of

each of the individual land owners, whose land was subjected

to acquisition. Besides, it has also not been cogently proved by

the appellant that any part of the land owned by each of the

land owners and subjected to acquisition did not bear

potentiality nor would have commanded a market value, lesser

than the value earned by the expanse of land comprised in

Ex.PW1/C. It appears, that, given the proximity of the acquired

land, as deposed by PW-4 Gulzar Singh and PW-3 Gurbachan

Singh, to educational institution, temple and abadi of the

villagers it enjoyed or commanded immense market value .

Therefore, when each parcel of the land subjected to

acquisition bore a market value, equivalent to the land

subjected to acquisition, hence, there was, no, legal error

committed by the learned Additional District Judge in relying

upon for the market value depicted, in, Ex.PW1/C and applying

it to the entire tracts of the land subjected to acquisition even,

when it was smaller in size vis-à-vis the land subjected to the

acquisition.

::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2022 13:32:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.

…16…

13. It is also significant here to refer to the judgment

reported in Bhagwathula Samanna & Ors. v. Special Tahsildar

and Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1992 SC 2298 wherein the

Hon’ble Apex Court has mandated:-

“13. 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 circumstances 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 capable of being used for

the purpose for which the smaller plots are used and

is also situated in a developed area with little or no

requirement of further development, the principle of

deduction of the value for purpose of comparison is

not warranted. With regard to the nature of the plots

involved in these two cases, 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 developed colony and in such

circumstances it is possible to utilize the entire area

in question as house sites. In respect of the land

acquired for the road, the same advantages are

available and it did not require any further

development. We, are, therefore, of the view that

the High Court has erred in applying the principle of

deduction and reducing the fair market value of

land from Rs.10/ per sq. yard to Rs. 6.50 paise per sq.

yard to Rs.6.50 paise per sq. yard. In our opinion, no

such deduction is justified in the facts and

circumstances of these cases. The appellants,

therefore, succeed.”

(pp. 2301-2302)

::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2022 13:32:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.

…17…

14. The citation aforesaid enshrines the principle that it is

not a absolute proposition of law that on the score of market

value of small tracts of land the compensation for large tracts of

land, is, impermissible. For assessing compensation for large

tracts of land, the market value of smaller tracts of land can be

relied upon, in case a larger tracts of land in its entirety is

advantageous or capable of being used for the purpose for

which the smaller tracts are used and, is, also situated in a

developed area, with little or no requirement of further

development. Besides, the principle of deduction need not be

applied, when this Court, has, held that there is no cogent and

reliable evidence on record to prove that each part of the large

tracts of the land or the wide expanse of land subjected to

acquisition, does not have either potentiality or market value

equivalent to the smaller tracts, comprised in Ex.PW-1/C relied

upon by the learned Additional District Judge for assessing

compensation, it can, hence, be concluded, that, consequently

given the location of the large tracts of land, in, the vicinity of a

developed area, it, was fetching the price equivalent to the

small tracts of land, hence, deduction was not permissible.

More so, when for reasons aforesaid deductions are not

awardable.

15. On the strength of Ex.PW1/C, the learned Additional

District, Una assessed the compensation at Rs.55000/- per kanal

::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2022 13:32:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.

…18…

for all categories of land, inclusive, of severance charges.

Severance charges have not been separately calculated nor

computed. Nor besides , deductions towards developmental

costs have been tenably omitted to be made from the total

amount of compensation. PW-4 Gulzar Singh has deposed that

during the construction of the railway track, there, has been

deprivation of accessibility to the villagers, to, conveniently

access either side of the railway track where their agricultural

land, is, located. The counsel for the appellant has relied upon

the deposition of RW-1 Joginder Singh, who in his cross -

examination has deposed that such severance is begotten only

with respect to the land of two persons, namely Smt. Oma Rani

and Smt. Sham Rani. Hence, he has contended that award of

severance charges to all the landowners/respondents , are,

untenable. However, reliance by the learned counsel for the

appellant upon the testimony of RW1 Joginder Singh qua the

fact aforesaid is misplaced, in as much as, he in his cross-

examination deposed that he did not visit the site of acquisition.

Consequently, when the site of acquisition remained unvisited

by him, his testimony qua severance of the land being begotten

qua two persons, hence, severance charges not awardable to

others, is, to be discountenanced . Therefore, it has to be

concluded that the construction of the railway track has caused

damage/injury to the landowners arising from theirs lands on

::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2022 13:32:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.

…19…

either side of the railway track being rendered not easily

accessible, as such, awarding of severance charges as done by

the learned Additional District Judge, Una, by making them

inclusive in the compensation sum of Rs.55000/- per kanal, does

not warrant interference.

16. In view of above discussion, I find no merit in these

appeals which are accordingly dismissed and the common

award dated 13.3.2009 rendered by the learned Additional

District Judge, Una, is affirmed. No order as to the costs.

27

th

May, 2014. (Sureshwar Thakur)

(soni/jai) Judge

::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2022 13:32:45 :::CIS