Allowed

Lac v. Dhani Ram

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Apr 2015RFA/73/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a lease refund appeal, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed the State's appeal, modifying the impugned award. The Court fixed compensation at `1,33,330/- per Bigha and directed interest calculation from the gazette notification date rather than the possession date.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award modified to pay compensation at `1,33,330/- per Bigha with interest from the gazette notification date.

Lac Vs Dhani Ram — Land Acquisition | Himachal Pradesh HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

RFA No. 73 of 2005. Date of Decision: 7^th April, 2015.

¶3

_______________________________________________________ Land Acquisition Collector & Others ……...Appellants. Versus Dhani Ram & Others ……....Respondents.

¶4

Coram

¶5

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. Whether approved for reporting¹ ? No.

¶6

For the appellants: Mr. D.S. Nainta & Virender Verma, Addl. A.Gs. with Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Dy. A.G. For the respondents: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1

¶7

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Oral)

¶8

Respondent-State is in appeal before this Court. Complaint is that learned Additional District Judge, Solan vide award dated 26.5.2003 passed in reference petition No.39-S/4 of 2001 has erroneously re-determined the market value of the land of the petitioner-respondent herein acquired for the construction of Kumarhatti-SultanpurOachghat road and awarded the compensation on the

¶9

Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶10

¶11

enhanced rate of `1,50,000/- per bigha and the interest from the date of taking over the possession of the acquired land.

¶12

It is seen that vide the award under challenge

¶13

four more references bearing No.46-S/4 of 2001, 47-S/4 of 2001 and 40-S/4 of 2001, titled Prem Parkash vs. LAC & Others,

¶14

Prem Prakash vs. LAC & Others and Dhani Singh & Others vs. LAC & Others, respectively, have also been decided. The respondent-State against this very award passed in aforesaid three references had preferred three appeals, RFA No.162 of 2004, titled LAC & Others vs. Prem Parkash, RFA 163 of 2004, titled LAC & Others vs. Prem Parkash and RFA No.164 of 2004, titled LAC & Others vs. Dhani Singh and others. All the three appeals stand disposed of along with a batch of appeals vide judgment dated 20^th August, 2007 rendered in lead case i.e. RFA No.156 of 2003 , titled Dinesh Chhetry vs. State of

¶15

H.P. & Others .

¶16

A perusal of the common judgment passed in Dinesh Chhetry’s case supra, reveals that the highest market value of the land i.e. `1,33,330/- per bigha assessed by the

¶17

¶18

Land Acquisition Collector has been held to be just and reasonable irrespective of the category of the land. True it is that the cases decided vide the judgment rendered in Dinesh Chhetry’s case supra, the acquired land was situated in different villages. Irrespective of the different locations of the acquired land, it has been observed qua contiguity of these places and potentiality of acquired land as under:-

¶19

“ I have perused the statements of the witnesses in all the appeals. From the statement of the witnesses, it is evident that the land in question has potential value for commercial growth. In the radius of 2-5 kms. there is a school, a commercial complex, post office, railway station and other communication facilities. The acquired land is also at a distance of about 5 Kms. from the township of Kumarhatti, which is on National Highway No.22 and is also at the same distance from Barog, which is a famous tourist destination on the same National Highway. Therefore, it cannot be disputed that the acquired land has potential of growth and is

¶20

¶21

capable of being put to commercial use. The lands are in continuity and have been acquired for the same public purpose.”

¶22

As a matter of fact in Dinesh Chhetry’s case and

¶23

the matters connected thereto, the market value of the land at the rate of 1,33,330/- per Bigha was fixed on the concession of learned Advocate General himself. Therefore, when in three of the cases discussed supra, the market value of the acquired land has been assessed at the rate of 1,33,330/- per Bigha, respondent-claimant in the present appeal is also entitled to the award of compensation at this very rate and not at the rate of `1,50,000/- per bigha. The acquired land of respondent-claimant is situated in village Dhillon. It is seen from the judgment passed by this Court in Dinesh Chhatry’s case supra that in few of the cases decided thereby, land acquired in village Dhillon was also involved. Even reference petition No.40-S/4 of 2001 titled Dhani Singh & other versus LAC, HPPWD Solan & others decided vide the award under challenge also pertains to village Dhillon. RFA

¶24

¶25

No.164 of 2004, preferred in Dhani Singh’s case has also been decided vide the common judgment passed in Dinesh Chhetry’s case. The impugned award, therefore, needs modification in accordance with the judgment rendered in Dinesh Chhetry’s case and the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation shall be payable from the date of publication of the notification in the official gazette i.e. 21.1.1995 and not from the date of taking over the possession of the acquired land.

¶26

In view of the point in issue is covered by the judgment of this Court in Dinesh Chhetry’s case, there is no need to discuss the facts and circumstances as well as the evidence in detail and the appeal can be disposed of in terms of the said judgment. Therefore, this appeal partly succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent that the respondent-petitioner is entitled to the compensation at the rate of `1,33,330/- per Bigha of the acquired land together with interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act

¶27

¶28

from the date of publication of the notification in the official gazette i.e. 21.1.1995 and other statutory benefits. Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶29

April 7, 2015 (Dharam Chand Chaudhary), (ps) Judge.

Lac v. Dhani Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lac v. Dhani Ram

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

Kundan Lal Vs Bali Ram

Asha Devi Vs Tarsem Devi

Rajinder Kumar Verma Vs Anita Verma

Lajja Devi Vs Yash Pal

Karan Singh Vs Cheeno

State Vs Khazan Singh