HARMINDER KUMAR MODI Vs. STATE OF H.P.
LAWS(HPH)-1997-5-38
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on May 01,1997

Harminder Kumar Modi Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF H.P. Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

H.P.HOUSING BOARD VS. SAVITRI DEVI (DEAD) THROUGH L.RS. [LAWS(HPH)-1999-6-34] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

ARUN KUMAR GOEL,J. - (1.)WE propose to take up both these appeals together as they arise out of the same judgment/award passed by Shri R. L. Sharma, Additional District Judge, Solan and Sirmaur Districts at Solan, H.P. By means of impugned award in case No. 22 -S/4 of l985 dated 25 -6 -1986, while answering the reference filed by Harminder Kumar Modi and Ors. (hereinafter referred to as the "Claimants') under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) compensation has been enhanced to Rs. 16,44,120 as against Rs 6,01,574,80, awarded by LA C Neither claimants are satisfied with this award of the reference court nor the Respondents hereinafter referred to as the State is satisfied with the same As according to the claimants, the impugned award is inadequate and was liable to be enhanced, whereas on the other hand, according to the State, the impugned award is excessive and is liable to be reduced R. F. A. No. 6S/87 is at the instance of the State and R.F.A. No. 17/87 is at the instance of the claimants.
It is necessary to refer to a few facts which have got material bearing in this case.

(2.)PROCESS was initiated for acquisition of 1 and on a part whereof structures were standing. Total area of the land that was sought to be acquired was 5529 sq. metres. Out of this total area 4762 sq. metres was situated in mauza Thodo Solan, Tehsil and District Solan, whereas the remaining area of 767 sq. metres was situate in mauza Saproon, Tehsil and Dislrict, Solan. The aforesaid property together with structures standing thereon was proposed to be acquired for a public purpose as well as at the public expenses by the State of H P Public purpose was construction of Judicial complex at Solan. In these circumstances, Notification No. Home -II (G) 1 -4/79 II, dated 13th November, 1982 was issued. As it is revealed from the record, the claimants did not file any objections and only one tenant, namely, Shri Mohan Lal objected to the acquisition. Land Acquisition Collector (SDM), Solan, vide its letter dated 19 -S -1983 submitted its report for the issuance of notification under Section 6 and 7 of the Act, the same was issued vide Notification No Home II (G 1 -4/79, dated 17th February, 1983 After the issuance of this notification, Land Acquisition Collector got the demarcation carried out in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of the act. Thereafter, notices under Section 9 of the act were issued to the persons interested calling upon them to file their objections and claims to compensation, if any, as well as to the measurements. Claimants No. 1, Harminder Kumar Modi appeared and appears to have made a claim of 35 00 lacs for the entire land/structures as according to him, the claimants had spent huge amount on the construction of buildings, plantation of fruit trees as well as carrying out other improvements Thereafter, award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector in the total sum of Rs. 6,95,685,
It may be appropriate to mention that as per statement under Section 18 of the Act that was required to be submitted by the Land Acquisition Collector while forwarding the reference application under Section 18 of the act, date of taking over of the possession was 30 -11 -1983. Further the aforesaid sum of compensation included the compensation in respect of land at the rate of 52 sq metre, compensation in respect of houses alongwith electricity and fittings, for fruit trees and non -fruit trees besides solatium at the rate of 15%. Claimants were not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, as such, by means of their reference application, they claimed that the matter be forwarded to the Court of District Judge, Solan for determination of compensation under Section 18 and 30 After receipt of reference, notices were issued to the parties. State contested and resisted the claim of the claimants before the reference court as according to it, compensation awarded was adequate and thus, it was prayed that the application be dismissed. Replication was filed on behalf of the claimants In the aforesaid background, parties went to trial on the following issues:

1. Whether the compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector for the property acquired was inadequate, if so what was the market value of the acquired property at the relevant time?

2. Relief.
Reference court after examination of the whole matter, enhanced the compensation as aforesaid and, thus, ordered payment of Rs. 10,42,515.20 over and above what had been already awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. It was further ordered that the claimant shall be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% on the enhanced compensation as also interest thereon at the rate of 9% PA from the date of taking possession till the enhanced compensation is deposited in the court However, parties were left to bear their own costs. It is this award of the reference court below which is questioned by both the parties as detailed hereinabove in both these appeals.
(3.)LEARNED Deputy Advocate General in support of the State's appeal has submitted that the claimants are not entitled to separate valuation of the building and the land. According to her, they are entitled to compensation in either of the two methods, but not by both. If the building is assessed then the measure to assessment is to be based on either rent received from the property with suitable multiplier or the value of the building is the proper method of valuation. As according to her, in the present case, land was separately valued The building could not have been separately assessed and compensation awarded except the value of debris. On this basis, it was urged by the learned Deputy Advocate General that the compensation awarded by the reference court was liable to be reduced and she prayed accordingly. This line of argument was also pressed into service in the claimants appeal where they asked for enhancement of compensation.


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