LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ORS. Vs. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of the present appeal and also eight other appeals detailed hereinabove involving identical questions of law and facts and having arisen out of the same award. As a matter of fact, Land Reference Petition No. 42 of 2009 was preferred by Roshan Lal appellant in this appeal against the supplementary award No. 1 of 2007, dated 12.1.2007 (Ex. PA) of Phati Dashad, Tehsil Sainj District Kullu. Similar references were preferred by the appellants in other eight appeals referred to hereinabove. All the nine references were consolidated by the Court below with reference petition No. 42 of 2009 for common trial. Evidence for the purpose of all the references was recorded in reference petition No. 42 of 2009. Consequently, all the petitions came to be decided by a common award passed on 31.5.2010 whereby learned trial Court has held the petitioners, respondents herein, entitled to the market value of their acquired houses as assessed by RW-1 Shri G.C. Gupta, of course, without deduction of any amount on account of depreciation and with increase at the rate of 40% on the market value of the houses so assessed by Mr. Gupta. Other statutory benefits payable under Section 23(1)(a) and 23(2) and also the interest payable under Section 28 of the Act were also granted in favour of the respondents-petitioners.

(2.) The respondent-State, appellant herein, aggrieved by the impugned award has challenged the legality and validity thereof in these appeals on the common grounds that the Court below has failed to appreciate the facts and evidence available on record in its right perspective and the same rather has been misread and misconstrued and as a result thereof, a wrong conclusion has been drawn. The statutory benefits, allegedly not admissible, have erroneously been granted in favour of the petitioners-respondents. The Court below allegedly erred in law and facts while awarding the compensation in respect of the acquired houses without deduction on account of depreciation and with 40% increase.

(3.) Learned Additional Advocate General during the course of arguments has mainly emphasized that the compensation in respect of the house in existence over the acquired land was rightly assessed and awarded by Land Acquisition Collector. It has, therefore, been urged that there was no occasion to the Court below to have awarded the compensation in respect of the houses as per the assessment made by RW-1 Shri G.C. Gupta, without deduction on account of depreciation from the assessment so made by him with 40% increase. As a matter of fact, this is the only grievance brought to this Court by the appellant-State, in these appeals.