VENKATARAMIAH - (1.) WHAT should be the true multiplier to be adopted in determining the compensation payable in respect of land acquired in or about the year 1962-63 where the market value of the land is to be fixed on the basis of the capitalisation principle is the question which arises for consideration in these appeals.
(2.) THE construction of the Beas Project was commenced in the year 1960 as a joint venture of the erstwhile State of Punjab and the State of Rajasthan by mutual agreement between the two States. All decisions on the policy and administrative matters were taken by a Board known as the Beas Control Board which was set up by the Central Government in consultation with the two States on 19/02/1961. THE Beas Project Board was presided over by the Governor of the then State of Punjab and its members included Ministers of the States of Punjab and Rajasthan and senior officers of the Central Government and of the two States. THE decisions of the Beas Control Board used to be implemented by the Punjab Government which was administering and executing the works on the Project. THE expenditure on the Project was shared by the Rajasthan Government. With the coming into force of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 (Act 31 of 1966), the new State of Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh came into being, having been formed out of the territory of the erstwhile State of Punjab. A part of the Punjab territory was also transferred to what was then the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh. What remained with Punjab became the new State of Punjab. Sub-section (1) of Section 80 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act. 1966 provided that the construction including the completion of any work already commenced of the Beas Project should on and from 1/11/1966 be undertaken by the Central Government on behalf of the successor States (as defined under that Act) and the State of Rajasthan should provide the necessary funds to the Central Government for the expenditure on the Project including the expenses of the Beas Construction Board. For the discharge of its functions, sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act empowered the Central Government in consultation with the Governments of the successor States and the State of Rajasthan to constitute a Board to be called the Beas Construction Board. Thus by the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, the entire expenditure for the construction and completion of the Beas Project was to be shared by the successor States and the State of Rajasthan but the responsibility of construction and completion of the Beas Project was entrusted to the Central Government.
(3.) ABOUT 70,000 acres of land had to be acquired for the Beas Dam Project which was located, in the Kangra area of the erstwhile State of Punjab which stood transferred to the then Union Territory of Himchal Pradesh under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. The necessary notifications under Sec. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been issued by the appropriate Government for that purpose. We are concerned in these cases with lands which were notified for acquisition in the years 1962 and 1963 under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands which stood transferred to the Union Territory of the State of Himachal Pradesh, as mentioned above, were to be completed by its officers. The lands in question are situated in Tikka Bhararian, Mauza Dhameta, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. The Land Acquisition Officer issued notices tinder Section 9 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act to the interested persons inviting their representations and objections with regard to the determination and payment of the compensation. After receiving the representations and objections, the Land Acquisition Officer (Shri Didar Singh) passed a common award on 31/01/1972 in respect of an extent of 1125.33 acres of land in Tikka Bhararian which had been notified on 1/04/1963. It would appear that another Land Acquisition Officer, Shri Jaswant Singh, had passed an award earlier on 2/04/1969 in respect of certain lands situated in Tikka Bihari which had been acquired for the very same public purpose. The Land Acquisition Officer who had to pass the award in these cases being of the opinion that the fertility, productivity and potentiality of land in Tikka Bhararian (the lands in question) were more or less comparable with those of the lands, situated in Tikka Bihari and that the classification and valuation of lands in the award, passed by Shri Jaswant Singh were quite fair, adopted the same for the purpose of passing the award in respect of the lands in question. It may be mentioned here that Shri Jaswant Singh had adopted for the purpose of valuation of lands the principle of capitalisation. He was of the view that the rule of 20 years' purchase was to be adopted. He accordingly after determining the net annual profit per kanal of land of the best category at Rs. 50 and multiplying it by 20 arrived at Rs. 1,000.00 as the value of one kanal of the best variety of land. In order to determine the net annual profit from the land, it appears that he had carried out a crop cutting experiment on some plot of land after the publication of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. It would appear that on behalf of the Department a statement had been filed showing that the lands of similar quality were being sold at or about the time of the publication of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act at Rs. 300.00 per kanal. Shri. Jaswant Singh (the Land Acquisition Officer) found that a mean between the valuation arrived at by him by adopting the principle of capitalisation i.e. Rupees 1,000/- per kanal and, Rs. 300.00 per kanal which, according to the Department was the value of the best category of land, in the area would be a reasonable compensation. Accordingly by adding the above two figures and dividing the total by two he arrived at Rs. 650.00 per kanal as the value of the best category of land and reduced the value proportionately in respect of other categories of land which were lower in quality. Virtually what was awarded was equivalent to thirteen times the net annual income. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Land Acquisation Officer, the claimants demanded that a reference should be made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Civil Court for the determination of proper compensation payable to them. Accordingly the cases were referred to the District Court of Kangra at Dharamsala. Along with these references, several other references also had been made to that Court in respect of several other bits of lands situated at Tikka Bihari and Tikka Bhararian which had been acquired at or about the same time. The learned District Judge who tried the cases was of the view that the oral evidence adduced by the owners of the land, on whom the burden of proof lay could not be relied upon. After discarding the oral evidence, the learned District Judge determined the market value of the land by adopting the capitalisation principle. He determined the compensation by multiplying the net annual income from each category of land by 20. Accordingly he fixed the compensation of the best category of land at Rs. 1,000.00 per kanal having held that the net annual income per kanal of that class of land was Rupees 50/-. For this purpose he appears to have relied on the result of the crop cutting experiment about which there was no evidence before him. He rejected the reason given by the Land Acquisition Officer for reducing the compensation from Its. 1,000/- to Rs. 650.00 on the ground that the Department had asserted that the land of similar quality was being sold at or about the relevant time at Rs. 300.00 per kanal. The compensation was fixed at comparatively lower rates in respect of other classes of land which were involved in these cases except in the case of G. M. abadi land for which he fixed at Rs. 650.00 per kanal. Aggrieved by the decision of the District Judge, the Union of India and the State of Himachal Pradesh preferred appeals before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The appellants contended that the methods adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer and the District Judge were both faulty and if the principle adopted by them was used in respect of all the 70,000 acres of land acquired, the Government would suffer a huge loss.;