Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1585 OF 2001
Shri Shiv Ram …..Appellant
Vs.
The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ……Respondents
J U D G M E N T
HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J.
1. This appeal arises out of the following facts:
2. About 11.9 bighas of land situated in two villages,
Kasumpati-Junga and Patii-Rihana was notified for
acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereinafter called the “Act”) in the official Gazette
2
nd rd th
on 2 April 1988, 23 July 1988 and 28
th
September 1988. The Collector by his Award dated 28
July 1988 granted a sum of Rs.43,330/- per bigha for
the acquired land. The claimant thereafter filed a
reference before the District Judge, Shimla, who vide his
th
order dated 11 June 1992 determined the market value
at Rs.70,000/- per bigha rejecting the claimant’s plea for
the award of Rs.1,75,000/- per bigha. The matter was
taken to the Division Bench of the High Court in First
th
Appeal and the Bench vide its judgment dated 30
December 1999 confirmed the compensation awarded by
the District Judge on reference but granted enhanced
interest and solatium as per the entitlement of the
claimant. The first appeal filed by the State Government
seeking a reduction in the compensation granted by the
District Judge was, however, dismissed. The present
appeal at the instance of the claimant is before us
against the judgment and order of the Division Bench
aforementioned.
3
3. Mr. Agrawala, the learned counsel for the claimant-
appellant has argued that as per Notification of the year
1980 the adjoining land in the same villages had been
acquired for the same purpose and compensation at
Rs.1.75 lakh per bigha minus 30% towards development
charges had been awarded by the High Court by its
judgment Ext.PY. He has, accordingly, pleaded that as
the present matter pertained to an acquisition of the year
1988, that is almost 8 years after the earlier acquisition,
a minimum of Rs.1.75 lakh was payable to the appellant.
Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondents
has, however, pointed out that this matter had been
dealt with by the Division Bench and the plea had been
rejected by observing that there was no evidence to show
that the land acquired in the year 1980 and the land
acquired by the impugned Notification was similar, of the
same quality, classification or potential for development
and in the absence of any such evidence merely because
some adjoining pieces of land had been granted a higher
4
compensation, there was no justification in granting
anything more in the present case.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
gone through the record. We are of the opinion that the
observations of the Division Bench with regard to the
quality and the situation of the land acquired in the year
1980 and the present acquisition are not quite accurate.
In this connection, we may refer to the evidence of the
land owner Lalit Kishore, who deposed that both these
lands fell in the municipal area and adjoined Chhota
Shimla Bazar and new colonies and flats made by the
Shimla Development Authority were close by and that
the land in question was level and was served with
facilities like electricity, water, and sewerage etc. Even
assuming for a moment that this statement could said to
be self-serving, we have chosen to consider the evidence
produced by the respondent State itself. We refer in
particular to the statements of Mangat Ram Patwari RW1
and Pratap Singh Kanoongo PW-2. Mangat Ram stated
that the lands acquired by the two Notifications were
5
situated side by side and that the land in all 4 villages
which were under acquisition were of similar quality.
Pratap Singh Kanoongo RW2 was even more forthcoming
when he stated:
“I was posted in Shimla from 1986 to June
1990. I have seen all the villages of the
acquired lands. It is correct that Khalini falls
by the side of Moza Patiyog. Thereafter Patii
Rehan Rural and then urban. By its side
village Kasumpati Jhunga falls. The quality
of all these land is the same and were
acquired for the same purpose. It is correct
that in the past 15 to 20 years in these
villages private and Govt. colonies have come
up in large scale. The boundary of Moza
Kasumpati Jhunga goes up to Pari Mahal.
Govt. colonies have been constructed right
up to Pari Mahal. In these villages land was
acquired even for SDA. In all these villages
modern facilities are available. I have not
brought that record on the basis of which
Exhibit-RC, RE and RG have been prepared.
The acquired land is by the side of BCS
school in Patiyog. The land of Patti Rehana
falls by the side of Brook Hurst. The land of
Kusumpati Jhunga falls by the side of
Kasumpati Bazar.”
6
5. These statements of the State’s witnesses clearly fortify
Mr. Agrawala’s submission that the land subject to the
two acquisition i.e. in 1980, and 1988 were of the same
quality and situation and potential for use and were
situated adjacent to each other and belonged to the same
villages. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the
observations of the Division Bench that no evidence had
come on record to justify the payment of compensation at
Rs.1.75 lakh per bigha minus 30 per cent are not
justified.
6. We have also gone through the claim made by the land-
owner/appellant before the High Court. We notice that
the claimant had sought compensation at Rs.1.30 lakh
per bigha and paid court fee on this figure. We are,
therefore, of the opinion notwithstanding the fact that
Mr. Agrawala is hesitatingly asking for Rs.5,00,000/- per
bigha or atleast Rs.1.75 lakh per bigha nothing more
than the amount claimed in the first appeal before the
High Court is admissible. As already mentioned above,
the land acquired by the Notification of 1980,
7
compensation at Rs.1.75 lakh per bigha had been
awarded with 30% cut towards development charges etc.
In view of the fact that the present acquisition was made
some 8 years later and a claim of Rs.1.30 lakh per bigha
has been made, we allow this appeal and direct that
compensation at Rs.1.30 lakh per bigha shall be payable
to the appellant. In addition to the enhanced
compensation, the claimant-appellant shall also be
entitled to solatium and interest on the enhanced
amount. We, further, direct that the entire sum payable
to the appellant under this judgment will be defrayed to
him within a period of 4 months from the date of the
supply of a certified copy of this judgment to the
respondent. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
……………………………..J.
(DALVEER BHANDARI)
………………………………J
(HARJIT SINGH BEDI)
8
New Delhi,
Dated: December 18, 2008