GIAN CHAND KUTHIALA Vs. L.A.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment shall dispose of RFA No. 331 of 200 and RFA No. 157 of 2002 both of which have been filed against the award dated 7.7.2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla in Land Ref. No. 2 -S/4 of 1995. RFA No. 331 of 2000 has been filed by the owner for enhancement of the compensation and RFA No. 157 of 2002 has been filed by the Land Acquisition Collector and State for setting aside the award dated 7.7.2000 as well as order dated 28.11.2000 passed by learned Additional District Judge in CMA No. 143 -S/6 of 2000 for reviewing the order dated 7.7.2000. The facts of the case are being referred from RFA No. 331 of 2000.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ˜Act) was published in H.P. Rajpatra on 28.7.1990 for acquiring land comprised in Khasra No. 12/1 measuring 4 Biswas, Khasra No. 13/1 measuring 1 Biswa, Khasra No. 15/1 measuring 6 Biswas total 11 Biswas at village Khalini, Tehsil and District Shimla for public purpose for construction of ˜Khalini Bihar Link Road. The land of other owners was also acquired. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ˜Collector) passed the award on 21.6.1993 awarding compensation per bigha as per quality of land, mentioned below : - i)Bakhal Abal - Rs. 5,77,133.00 ii)Bagicha Bakhal Abal - Rs. 5,77,133.00 iii)Banjar Ghasni and Gair Mumkin - Rs. 1,20,236.00

(3.) I have heard Mr. Vinay Kuthaila, learned Counsel for the owner of the land, Mr. M.S. Chandel, learned Advocate General for the State in both the appeals and gone through the record. Mr. Kudhiala, has submitted that the acquired land is situated in Khalini which is developed area of Shimla town itself. The learned Additional District Judge has awarded compensation of the acquired land on relying lease transaction of land of Shimla Development Authority which is far away from the acquired land and where only lease hold rights were transferred to the allottee at the rate of Rs. 1252 per square meter. In the present case, ownership rights have been acquired which are higher rights in comparison to lease hold rights, therefore, even on the basis of transaction relied by learned Additional District Judge other owner is entitled to higher rates. The learned Advocate General has submitted that the learned Additional District Judge has erred in enhancing the compensation in the impugned award over and above what was allowed by the Collector. He has submitted that review order dated 28.11.2000 vide which learned Additional District Judge has rejected the contention of the State is also wrong and is liable to be set aside.