SHIV RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the following facts:

(2.) About 11.9 bighas of land situated in two villages, Kasumpati-Junga and Patii-Rihana was notified for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the "Act") in the official Gazette on 2nd April 1988, 23rd July 1988 and 28th September 1988. The Collector by his Award dated 28th July 1988 granted a sum of Rs. 43,330/- per bigha for the acquired land. The claimant thereafter filed a reference before the District Judge, Shimla, who vide his order dated 11th June 1992 determined the market value at Rs. 70,000/- per bigha rejecting the claimants plea for the award of Rs. 1,75,000/- per bigha. The matter was taken to the Division Bench of the High Court in First Appeal and the Bench vide its judgment dated 30th December 1999 confirmed the compensation awarded by the District Judge on reference but granted enhanced interest and solatium as per the entitlement of the claimant. The first appeal filed by the State Government seeking a reduction in the compensation granted by the District Judge was, however, dismissed. The present appeal at the instance of the claimant is before us against the judgment and order of the Division Bench aforementioned.

(3.) Mr. Agrawala, the learned Counsel for the claimant- appellant has argued that as per Notification of the year 1980 the adjoining land in the same villages had been acquired for the same purpose and compensation at Rs. 1.75 lakh per bigha minus 30% towards development charges had been awarded by the High Court by its judgment Ext.PY. He has, accordingly, pleaded that as the present matter pertained to an acquisition of the year 1988, that is almost 8 years after the earlier acquisition, a minimum of Rs. 1.75 lakh was payable to the appellant. Mr. Sharma, the learned Counsel for the respondents has, however, pointed out that this matter had been dealt with by the Division Bench and the plea had been rejected by observing that there was no evidence to show that the land acquired in the year 1980 and the land acquired by the impugned Notification was similar, of the same quality, classification or potential for development and in the absence of any such evidence merely because some adjoining pieces of land had been granted a higher compensation, there was no justification in granting anything more in the present case.