Dismissed

State v. Aruna

Himachal Pradesh HC1 May 2014RFA/91/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed appeals filed by the State challenging an enhanced compensation award for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court held that since land was acquired for road construction as a single unit, classification was irrelevant, validating the uniform compensation rate.

What did the court decide?

Present appeals devoid of merit are dismissed; pending applications disposed of.

State Vs Aruna — Land Acquisition | Himachal Pradesh HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

RFA No.84 of 2010 alongwith RFA Nos.85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95 and 96 of 2010. Decided on : 1.5.2014

¶3

RFA No.84/2010 State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Petitioners Versus Nand Lal and others …Respondents RFA No.85/2010 State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Petitioners Versus Sh. Sohan Lal and others …Respondents RFA No.86/2010 State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Petitioners Versus Sh. Sanjeev Kumar and another …Respondents RFA No.87/2010 State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Petitioners Versus Sh. Om Prakash and others …Respondents RFA No.88/2010 State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Petitioners Versus Sh. Ram Swaroop and another …Respondents RFA No.89/2010 State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Petitioners Versus Shri Subhash Chand and others …Respondents RFA No.90/2010 State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Petitioners Versus Sh. Jiya Lal …Respondent RFA No.91/2010 State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Petitioners Versus Smt. Aruna and others …Respondents RFA No.92/2010 State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Petitioners

¶4

¶5

Versus Sh. Bhagat Ram and others	…Respondents
RFA No.93/2010
State of Himachal Pradesh and others Versus	… Petitioners
Shri Sant Ram	…Respondents
RFA No.94/2010
State of Himachal Pradesh and others Versus	… Petitioners
Sh. RoopRam	…Respondent
RFA No.95/2010
State of Himachal Pradesh and others Versus	… Petitioners
Smt. Bimla Devi and others	…Respondents
RFA No.96/2010
State of Himachal Pradesh and others Versus	… Petitioners
Shri Gagan and others	…Respondents
Coram:

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No For the Petitioners : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, A.G. with Mr. M.L. Chauhan and Mr. R.S. Verma, Addl. A.Gs. For the Respondents : Mr. Vijay Sharma and Mr. O.P. Negi Advocates.

¶8

Sanjay Karol, J . (oral)

¶9

In all these appeals, possession of land belonging to poor villagers was taken over by State in the year 1984. Undisputedly, land was utilized for the purpose of construction of public road. The total extent of land involved in all these appeals is only 9.16 Bighas (approximately 8244 Sq. yards). It cannot be disputed that possession of land was taken over without following due process of law. Land owners were made to run from pillar to post. Poor villagers stood deprived of their Constitutional rights as no

¶10

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

¶11

¶12

compensation, of any nature, was ever paid to them. Only in the year 2007 and that too after they were made to run from pillar to post, State took remedial measures by initiating proceedings for acquisition of land, under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

¶13

Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 25.7.2007. Land is situated in Village Jabal Jamrot, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. Award under Section 11 of the Act was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 22.10.2008, who awarded different rates of compensation for different categories of land, ranging from 18,000/- to 6,00,000/- per Bigha. Interest and solatium stand awarded from the date of initiation of proceedings under the provisions of Act.

¶14

In the proceedings initiated by land owners under Section 18 of the Act, the Additional District Judge, Solan has now enhanced the amount of compensation by uniformly fixing the value of entire land to be `6,00,000/- per Bigha, irrespective of category and classification.

¶15

In my considered view, no error can be found with the reasoning so adopted by the Court below. The issue in fact stands settled not only by this Court but also by the apex Court. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Executive Engineer & anr. vs. Dilla Ram, HLJ 2008 (HP) 1007, under identical circumstances, has inter alia made the following observations:-

¶16

¶17

“The Collector has awarded compensation of acquired land as per classification of the land. The learned District Judge has enhanced the compensation of the acquired land as per classification. One of the questions in the above appeals is whether awarding of compensation as per classification of the land is proper or not. The purpose of the acquisition in the present case is for construction of road and for that purpose classification completely looses significance. The acquired land is to be used/developed as a single unit for the construction of road. In H.P. Housing Board vs. Ram Lal and others, 2003 (3) Shim. L.C. 64 the acquisition was made for construction of housing board colony and compensation was assessed as per classification by the collector. In the High Court the persons interested limited their claim for enhancement of compensation to Rs.400/per square meter irrespective of classification. On those facts, a learned single judge of this court has held that when the land is being developed for constructing housing colony, the classification completely looses significance and awarded compensation on the flat rate of Rs.200/- per square meter for the entire land irrespective of classification or nearness to the road. In Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh and others 2005(12) SCC 564, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has approved the view of the High Court assessing the market value of the lands under acquisition in the five villages at uniform rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre, irrespective of their nature or quality and whether the same was situated nearer to the roar or at some distance therefrom. In the resent case also, the acquired land is to be used/developed for the construction of the road as

¶18

¶19

a single unit and therefore, classification of the land losses significance. In these circumstances, the persons interested are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per biswa or Rs.1,20,000/- per bigha of the acquired land irrespective of classification, which is more than the market value assessed by learned District Judge.”

¶20

The ratio of law in Executive Engineer & anr. (supra) is clearly applicable to the instant case. Entire land is used for construction of road. As already observed, villagers stand deprived of lawful use and occupation of their valuable land for more than 23 years. It cannot be said that there is any illegality, perversity, irregularity or unreasonableness in the impugned award dated 24.11.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Solan.

¶21

With the aforesaid observations, present appeals devoid of merit, are dismissed. Pending application(s), if any also stand disposed of.

¶22

May 1, 2014 (KS)

¶23

(Sanjay Karol), J.

State v. Aruna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Aruna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

H.P.S.E.B Vs Lachhi Ram

H.P.S.E.B Vs Dharam Dassi

Gurbhajan Lal Vs Rakesh Kumar

State Vs Bimla Devi

State Vs Sant Ram

State Vs Jiya Lal