Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against enhancement of compensation for land acquired for Sainj Hydro-Electric Project. Appeal disposed in terms of earlier judgments in connected appeals; award 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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
RFA No.103 of 2015 Decided on : 5 th January, 2024
Land Acquisition OfÏcer/ Collector & Another .......Appellants
Versus
Mehar Chand (deceased) through LRs & Others …....Respondents
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1
For the appellants : Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate. For the respondents : None for respondents No.1(a) to 1(c). Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General with Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.2.
Virender Singh, Judge (Oral).
Appellants, have filed the present appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), aggrieved against the award dated 01.04.2013, passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial Court), in reference petition No.95 of 2012.
1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
“26. In view of findings given on issues above, the reference petition is allowed and the petitioners are held entitled to Rs.26,000/- per biswa of acquired land, irrespective of classification of land. In addition to this, for the land acquired by the respondents, the petitioners are also entitled to:-
3 . For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, as were, referred to, by the learned trial Court.
appeal, before this Court, may be summed up as under:-
3
4.1. The land of the petitioners situated in phati Shensher, Phati Garaparli, phati Suchehan, Sub-Tehsil Sainj, District Kullu, H.P., was acquired by the respondents for construction of Sainj Hydro-Electric Project. In this regard notification under Section 4 of the Act, was issued on 24.10.2007.
4.2. The said notification was given vide publicity. Thereafter, the other codal formalities, as per Sections 6 and 7 of the Act, were completed and ultimately award, under Section 11 of the Act, was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, on 16.10.2009.
4.3. Aggrieved from the said award, the petitioners have preferred the reference petition under Section 18 of the Act, before the Land Acquisition Collector, who has forwarded the same to the learned trial Court, for adjudication.
4
ground that the learned trial Court has acted with material irregularity and illegality, while passing the impugned award; the award is also perfunctory and completely based upon conjectures and surmises; the learned trial Court has drawn farfetched inferences, while passing the impugned award, resulting into a gross miscarriage of justice; the impugned award is a result of misreading and misinterpretation of evidence; the learned trial Court has erred in traversing beyond specific provisions of the Act; the learned trial Court has gravely erred in enhancing the compensation and allowing uniform rates of lands having different classifications, which is not permissible in law; while determining the compensation payable, the learned trial Court has failed to co-relate the market value reflected in the most comparable, proximate and genuine instances and evidence produced by the appellants for providing the index of market value; and the impugned award is harsh, oppressive, arbitrary, unjust and illegal.
5
Land Acquisition (HPSEB/ HPPCL) & Another versus Narayan Singh & Others.
Court, has passed the following order, on 10.11.2017:
2. It is not in dispute that appeals arising out of similarly situated claimants, as also very same acquisition proceedings, arising out of very same notifications under Sections 4 and 11 of the Act, stand decided by this Court vide judgment dated 30.08.2017, passed in RFA No. 902 of 2012, titled as The Land Acquisition Collector & another vs. Sh. Ram Lal and others alongwith connected appeals. As such, the present appeals are squarely covered by the said decision, for the issues involved are identical. This fact is not disputed. As such, the present appeals stand disposed of, in terms of the said judgment. Directions issued in Ram Lal (supra) shall mutatis mutandis apply to the instant cases also. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.”
6
connected matters, in which, the following order, has been passed:
10. Learned District Judge has appreciated the evidence on record in right perspective, completely and correctly. There is no illegality, irregularity or perversity in impugned judgment. Therefore, no ground for interference is made out.
11. In view of above, there is no merit in the appeals and the same are dismissed and award passed by the learned District Judge is upheld. Record be sent back to the reference Court. No orders as to costs.”
Record be sent down.
January 05, 2023 (ps)
( Virender Singh ) Judge
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Collector Land Acquisition (HPSEB/HPPCL) & Another versus Narayan Singh & OthersRelied on
RFA No.4133 of 2013, titled as Collector Land Acquisition (HPSEB/HPPCL) & Another versus Narayan Singh & Others
The Land Acquisition Collector & Another versus Ram Lal & OthersRelied on
RFA No.902 of 2012, titled as The Land Acquisition Collector & Another versus Ram Lal & Others
9 provisions across 1 enactments
Land Acquisition Officer/Collector & Another
Mehar Chand (deceased) through LRs & Others
Virender Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
