L.A.C. Vs. RANI RAJINDERA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of RFA No. 243 of 1991, RFA No. 157 of 1997 and RFA No. 156 of 1997. The facts from each appeal are given below. RFA No. 243 of 1991

(2.) THE H.P. Govt. for acquiring land measuring 2 -77 -17 hectres for Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board for public purpose for construction of approach road to Pachadda quarry at village Jhakri issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (for short ˜the Act) which was published in H.P. Rajpatra on 7.2.1987. The land of Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh predecessor of respondents No. 1(a) to 1(d) comprised in Khasra No. 2010, 1986/1, 1991/1, 1992/1, 1994/1, 2002/1, 2008/1, and 2008/2 total measuring 2 -44 -55 hectres (32 Bighas and 10 Biswas) was involved in the acquisition. The Collector Land Acquisition Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short ˜Collector) announced the award No. 4/89 on 24.2.1989. Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh predecessor -in -interest of respondents No. 1(1) to 1(d) was not satisfied with the award, he preferred reference petition under Section 18 of the Act. According to him the compensation awarded by Collector is less and he claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,40,000/ - per bigha for the acquired land. The reference petition came to be registered at L.Ref. No. 21 -S/4 of 1989 in the Court of learned District Judge (Forest), Shimla.

(3.) THE award dated 23.7.1991 has been assailed on the grounds that learned District Judge has not properly assessed the market value of the acquired land. The market value has been wrongly assessed on the basis of small area transactions. The respondents No. 1(a) to 1(d) are not entitled to compensation due to dispute of title of their predecessor Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh regarding acquired land which was being determined in the proceedings under the Ceiling Act. According to respondents No. 1(a) to 1(d) learned District Judge has rightly assessed the market value of the acquired land and has correctly assessed the market value of the acquired land and has correctly awarded compensation as per impugned award. The appellants filed CMP No. 260 of 1998 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of reply to reference petition under Section 18 of the Act to the effect that Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh had no title at the time of acquisition of the acquired land, in fact State was the owner at the time of acquisition of acquired land and therefore, Rajinder Singh Raj Kumar and after him respondents No. 1(a) to 1(d) are not entitled to any compensation. The appellants supported this objection, by taking help of Section 27 of the H.P. Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 (for short Abolition of Big Landed Estates Act) as well as Ceiling Act. The appellants also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC being CMP No. 147 of 1998 for additional evidence. Both these applications were contested by respondents No. 1(a) to 1(d). According to respondents No. 1(a) to 1(d) their predecessor Rajinder Singh Raj Kumar was owner in possession of the acquired land despite Abolition of Big Landed Estates Act and Ceiling Act. In fact under the Act appellants have no locus standi to raise the question of pre -existing title in favour of State nor the Court has jurisdiction to determine this question under the Act. RFA No. 157 of 1997