STATE OF H.P. Vs. HEM RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all these appeals have been preferred against a common award, the same are taken up jointly for disposal. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was published in the Rajpatra on 31.12.1994 for acquiring land in village/Muhal Katipari, Sub Tehsil Padhar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh which land was acquired for public purpose for construction and widening of National Highway-20. The Land Acquisition Collector passed the award under Section 11 on 3.1.1997 vide award No. 19. This award was based on the average five years value, Ext. RA according to which the compensation was awarded on the basis of the classification of the land.

(2.) The respondents/land owners feeling aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector claimed enhancement of the same by filing Reference Petitions under Section 18 of the Act. These petitions were allowed by learned District Judge, Mandi and he awarded compensation @ 2 lacs per bigha irrespective of the classification of the acquired land. It is this award which has been challenged in all these appeals before this Court.

(3.) It is alleged that the learned Court below has not appreciated the evidence in the right perspective and the learned Court below has based its award on sale deed, Ext. P-1, which is a manipulated one, in order to fetch maximum compensation of the land. This deed has come into existence between the parties who are related as uncle and nephew and the same was a sham transaction since nephew who appeared as PW/3 was working as a Draftsman in HP. PWD Department and was, therefore, well aware of the proposed acquisition. It is further contended that the award was required to be passed on the basis of the records maintained by the Government particularly average market price worked out on the basis of average value of five years, Ext. RA and was further required to be determined on the basis of classification of the land, rather than awarding a lumpsum compensation irrespective of the classification of the land. It is also argued that the matter qua damages was subject matter of jurisdiction of the Civil Court and was required to be governed by the law of limitation and Court Fee Act and, therefore, directions given by the learned Court below to the contrary were not sustainable in the eyes of law.