Appeals challenging the enhancement of land acquisition compensation by a land tribunal were dismissed. The Court held that for road construction, land classification loses significance, validating the tribunal's uniform compensation rate.
Appeals dismissed; impugned award of the Additional District Judge dated 24.11.2009 upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
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
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
2
| 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: |
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
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.
Sanjay Karol, J . (oral)
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
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
3
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).
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.4
“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
5
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.”
With the aforesaid observations, present appeals devoid of merit, are dismissed. Pending application(s), if any also stand disposed of.
May 1, 2014 (KS)
(Sanjay Karol), J.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether classification of land loses significance when acquisition is for construction of a road to be developed as a single unit.
Whether the Additional District Judge erred in enhancing compensation to a uniform rate irrespective of land classification.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Executive Engineer & anr. vs. Dilla RamRelied on¶17
Executive Engineer & anr. vs. Dilla Ram, HLJ 2008 (HP) 1007
H.P. Housing Board vs. Ram Lal and othersRelied on¶17
H.P. Housing Board vs. Ram Lal and others, 2003 (3) Shim. L.C. 64
Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh and othersRelied on¶17
Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh and others, 2005(12) SCC 564 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Himachal Pradesh and others
Nand Lal and others
Sohan Lal and others
Sanjeev Kumar and another
Om Prakash and others
Ram Swaroop and another
Sanjay Karol
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court