JASWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since, all the aforementioned appeals, arise from, a common verdict, pronounced by the learned District Judge, Mandi, upon, respectively constituted there before reference petitions, by the appellants herein/landowners concerned, hence, all the aforesaid RFAs, are, amenable for a common verdict, being renderable thereon.

(2.) The appellants/landowners' land, stood, acquired for construction, of, Sundernagar-Palahi Dharanda via Khilra road. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/landowners, has, contended with much vigour (i) that the learned reference Court has committed, a, gross impropriety, in, not meteing deference to Ex.PA, (ii) exhibit whereof, comprises a valid, and, reckonable sale examplar, vis-a-vis, the land borne in Mauza Khilra, mauza whereof is proximate to mauza Kalhaud. However, the aforesaid contention reared before this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, would, hold tenacity, upon, cogent evidence standing adduced, with a vivid display therein, (iii) qua, the, land borne in Ex.PA, standing located in proximity, vis-avis, the land brought to acquisition; (iv) the execution of Ex.PA occurring in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, issuance of the apt statutory notification. However, a perusal, of, the testification rendered by PW-3, in, land Reference Petition No. 66 of 2008, and, witness whereof, rather tendered into evidence Ex.PA, omits to make any palpable display therein, vis-a-vis, the afore trite parameters hence begetting their apt satiation, (v) whereas, meteing(s) of satiation thereto, was imperative, for, hence, Ex. PA being construable, to, constitute, a, reckonable sale exemplar, for, on its anvil, hence both just and reasonable compensation, being assessed, vis-a-vis, the land of the appellants/landowners concerned. Consequently, the discarding, by the learned reference Court, of, the sale exemplar, borne in Ex.PA, is not unmeritworthy.

(3.) Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended (a) that the meteing, of, 50% deduction, by the learned Reference Court, vis-a-vis, the compensation amount determined, on anvil of sale exemplar, borne in Ex.PB, being ridden with, a, gross impropriety. The afore submission carries immense weight or vigour, (b) given this Court while relying, upon, para 13 occurring, in, a judgment, of, the Honourable Apex Court, rendered in a case titled as Bhagwathula Samanna and others Vs. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1992 SC 2298, proceeding, to, in paragraphs No.10 to 14, of, a judgment rendered in a case titled as G.M. Norther Railway Vs. Gulzar Singh and others, reported in 2014(3) Shim. LC 1356, (c) hence making a conclusion, that, it being not an inflexible proposition of law, that, on anvil of market value, of small tracts of land, hence, compensation being not assessable, vis-a-vis, large tracts of land, (d) importantly when evidence surges forth, vis-a-vis, the acquisition of large tracts of land, in their entirety, being evidently advantageous or capable of being used, for the very purpose for which the small tracts of land are used, and, also when they stand situated in a developed area, with, little or no requirement for further development. It has also been therein held (e) that, if, there is no cogent and reliable evidence on record, for, proving that each part of the large tracts of land or the wide expanse of land, subjected to acquisition, rather not holding either potentiality or market value, equivalent to the smaller tracts, comprised in Ex.PW1/C,, thereupon deductions being not meteable. Bearing in mind the afore expostulation of law, and when hereat, no evidence, in consonance therewith hence emerges, vis-a-vis Ex.PW1/C, comprising an inapt sale exemplar, thereupon the meteings, of, deductions, vis-a-vis the compensation amount, is hence rather concomitantly, rendered unjust, (i) rather it can, hence, be concluded, that, consequently, given the location, of, large tracts of land, in, the vicinity of a developed area, and, hence were holding, the, potentiality, to fetch, a, price equivalent to the small tracts, of land, borne in Ex.PW1/C, whereupon, too, the meteings, of, deduction(s), is also rendered impermissible. The relevant paragraphs No. 10 to 14, of, the verdict of this Court in G.M. Norther Railway Vs. Gulzar Singh and others, reported in 2014(3) Shim. LC 1356, read as under:-