(Ranjan Gogoi and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.)
Shawal Singh (D) Thr. Lrs _____________________________ Appellant
v.
Land Acquisition Collector, HP & anr ________________ Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 5885/2006, decided on January 14, 2016
The Order of the court was delivered by
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Order
1. The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
Civil Appeal No. 5885/2006
Shawal Singh (D) Thr. Lrs _______________________ Appellant(s)
v.
Land Acquisition Collector, HP & anr _______________ Respondent(s)
Order
2. The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 11th March, 2005 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh by which compensation at the rate of Rs. 23,115/- per kanal has been granted to the claimant along with all statutory benefits including interest and solatium. Aggrieved by the said award and claiming higher compensation this appeal has been filed.
3. The total area of the land acquired in the present case is 98 kanals and 2 marlas out of which the appellants own about 7 kanals. The Land Acquisition Collector while determining the compensation classified the land into three categories and awarded the compensation as follows:
| “Barani Abbal | Rs. 23,115/- per kanal; |
| Banjar Quadim | Rs. 7, 234.20 paise per kanal |
| Gair Mumkin | Rs. 14, 285.80 paise per kanal” |
4. The Reference Court dismissed the claim for higher compensation. Aggrieved, an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was filed by the claimant. The High Court by the impugned order took the view that as the purpose of acquisition was for building a housing colony the categorization of the land was not a relevant factor. In addition, the High Court considered the location of the land for the purposes of determining the potential value thereof and having regard to the exemplar sale deeds brought on record thought it proper to award compensation at the rate awarded to the highest category of land i.e. Barani Abbal which rate is Rs. 23,115/- per kanal.
5. Shri M.L. Varma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants has raised a contention that the highest exemplar which showed sale at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per kanal ought to have been taken into account by the High Court for the purposes of determining the compensation payable. In this regard, reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in Mehrawal Khewaii Trust (Registered). Faridkot v. State of Punjab [(2012) 5 SCC 432 (paragraph 17)].
6. Pointing out the findings of the High Court with regard to the location of the land, Shri Varma has also relied another decision of this Court in Atma Singh (dead) through LRs. v. State of Haryana [(2008) 2 SCC 568 (paragraph 5)] wherein this Court has laid down parameters on the basis of which potential value of the acquired land is required to be assessed/determined. Reliance has also been placed on a third decision of this Court in Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal [(2011) 6 SCC 47 (paragraphs 56 and 58)] to contend that determination of compensation necessarily involves some amount of guesswork. It is on the basis of the aforesaid legal precedents that Shri Varma has contended that the compensation awarded by the High court is grossly inadequate and needs to be suitably enhanced.
7. From the order of the Reference Court, which is available on record, we find that the claimant in support of his claim of higher compensation had brought on record several sale deeds showing transactions between the rate of Rs. 8,500/- and Rs. 50,000/- per kanal. The Reference Court on consideration of the aforesaid exemplars had recorded a finding that the sale deeds in question were for very small areas ranging from 5 marlas to 1 kanal 3 marlas and that such lands had been purchased for the purposes of construction of private houses. The Reference Court had also recorded a finding that Exhibit P-12, Exhibit P-14, Exhibit P-16 and Exhibit P-20 cited by the claimant himself show that the said transaction was at the rate of near about Rs. 20,000/- per kanal. Though the basis on which the Reference Court had declined enhancement of the compensation has been disagreed with by the High Court and higher compensation, as already noticed, has been awarded by the High Court, the aforesaid findings of fact remain undisturbed. The fact that the exemplar sale deeds were for small plots and the acquisition in the present case is of a large area measuring 98 kanals and 2 marlas cannot be disputed. Coupled with the above is the settled position in law that in respect of a large area acquired for a housing colony suitable deductions have to be made. The same has not been taken into account by the High Court in awarding the higher compensation of Rs. 23,115/- per kanal, a fact that must go into the process of determination of the quantum awardable.
8. The decision of this Court in Mehrawal Khewaii Trust (Registered). Faridkot (supra) with regard to highest rate of comparable sales is subject to certain well defined and well understood exceptions apart from the necessity of proving such sales to be bona fide as indicated in the decisions of this Court. The extent of the area transferred would certainly be a relevant factor which issue stands concluded by findings of fact recorded by the learned Reference Court.
9. The decision of this Court in Trishala Jain (supra) insofar as the determination of compensation on the basis of guesswork is concerned itself contains an observation to the effect that such guesswork would be permissible only if relevant/sufficient evidence is not available on record. In the present case, as already observed by the Court, adequate evidence which would militate against the claim of higher compensation made by the claimant is readily available, as discussed above.
10. In the light of the above, we do not find that there is any basis for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the High Court as canvased in the present appeal. The appeal, therefore, has to fail. It is, accordingly, dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.
———
