COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION Vs. REVAT RAM DECEASED THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES TIKAMU DEVI
LAWS(HPH)-1997-7-27
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on July 01,1997

COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION Appellant
VERSUS
REVAT RAM DECEASED THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES TIKAMU DEVI Respondents




JUDGEMENT

M.SRINIVASAN, J. - (1.)This appeal is against an Award made by the Addl. District Judge, Mandi, in reference petition No. 40 of 1985. The following facts are not in dispute. The possession of the land was taken somewhere in 1972 for the purpose of construction of Kullu -Nagar left bank road. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 6 -5 -1980. The Land Acquisition Collector passed the award on 28 -12 -1984, granting compensation of Rs. 18,330/ - representing the market value + 30% solatium being Rs. 5499/ - making a total of Rs. 23,829/ -. On a reference under Section 18 of the Act, the Addl. District Judge has awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000/ -as compensation in all inclusive of the sum of Rs. 18,330/ - awarded by the Collector. The District Judge has also awarded on the enhanced amount of Rs. 56,670/ - interest @ 9% from 1972 for a period of one year and thereafter @ 15% till the deposit of the amount in Court by the Collector. The District Judge further declared that the claimants were entitled to interest @ 9% on the compensation amount awarded by the Collector for a period of one year from 1972 and thereafter @ 15% till the date of deposit. That part of the award of the District Judge was obviously under Section 34 of the Act.
(2.)In this appeal, the following contentions are raised by the learned Advocate General: (i) There is no legally admissible evidence whatever to prove the market value of the land, inasmuch as no party to any of the documents placed before the Court was examined by the claimants, it is contended that reliance is placed by the District Judge on Ex. P -7, which is only a statement of analysis of the sales in the area giving the rates for which the sales were effected. That document cannot be treated as evidence at all. This contention is well founded. (ii) The basis of fixation of value for the land in question is erroneous. According to the claimants, there was a ghrat in existence and the District Judge has awarded compensation separately for the ghrat on the basis of the income which would have been derived by the claimants from the date of dispossession in 1972 till the date of the award passed by the Collector. It is contended that the proper method of assessing the compensation is to take the entire land and ghrat together and treating it as one unit and fixing the market value on the basis of the ghrat with a kuhal on which it depends. At one stage, the learned Advocate General contended that there was no ghrat in existence when the possession was taken and no amount could have been awarded for the said ghrat. But it is found from the records that there was a clear reference to the ghrat even in the award of the Collector and when the matter was referred under Section 18 of the Act, there was a separate claim made by the claimants for the value of the ghrat and there was no challenge to that statement by the Collector in the reply, on the footing that there was no ghrat in existence, though no doubt, the value claimed was challenged by the Collector. The learned District Judge has also held that no evidence was adduced by the State Government to prove that there was no ghrat in existence when the land was taken possession. Even the award statement referred to the existence of the ghrat and there was ample evidence before the District Judge to hold that there was a ghrat in existence. Hence we proceed on the footing that there was ghrat in existence.
(3.)However, we accept the contention of the learned Advocate General that compensation should be fixed on the basis that there was a Gharat and Kuhal on which the ghrat was depending. But neither the Collector nor the District Judge has kept this aspect in mind, but proceeded to consider the market value or compensation for the land and ghrat independent of each other It is also not in dispute now that the materials at present on record are not sufficient to enable this Court to decide the market value or the compensation on that basis. Hence there is a necessity for remanding this matter to the Addl. District Judge for fresh consideration in accordance with law for fixing the market value and compensation.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.