(1.) These two appeals (RFA Nos. 112 and 123 of 1996) at the instance of Himachal Pradesh Housing Board (hereinafter called the Board), are being disposed of by a common judgment as these arise out of the same award dated 14.8.1996 passed by District Judge, Shimla whereby the market V9lU5 of the acquired land was enhanced to Rs. 1,11,660/ - per Bigha from Rs. 20,000/ - per Bigha granted by the Land Acquisition Collector. The acquired land is measuring 53.12 bighas comprised in Khasra Nos. 354, 355 and 363 situated in village Annu, Tehsil Rohm, District Shimla, out of which land measuring 47 Bighas comprised in Khasra Nos. 354 and 355 belbnged to Shri Bharat Singh Negi and three other arrayed as respondents -claimants in RFA No. 123 of 1996 and land measuring 6 -12 Bighas belonged to Shri Rajnesh Dutta and 26 others arrayed as respondents -claimants in RFA No. 112 of 1996. The purpose of acquisition in question was construction of Social Housing Colony by the Board and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act) was issued on 29.7.1989. The Land Acquisition Collector gave his award on 3.7.1992.
(2.) Having been not satisfied with the determination of market value by the Land Acquisition Collector, the respondents -claimants filed reference petitions, which have been decided by the impugned award enhancing the market value of acquired land to Rs. 1,11,660/ - per Bigha, which has been assailed by the Board in these appeals. The first ground of challenge is that sale transactions Exts. PW -4/A to PW -4/D and PW -5/A could not be relied upon for determining the market value of acquired land for the reasons; firstly that the kind of acquired land was Bakhal Awal, whereas, the kind of the lands of the said sale transactions was superior /. e. Kiar Awal; secondly, the area of acquired land is very big as compared to the respective area of each of the sale transactions; thirdly, two of the sale deeds Ex. PW -4/D and Ex. PW -5/A could not be taken into consideration as these pertain to dates six months after the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Another ground is that the District Judge has not made any deduction for the purpose of development keeping in view the purpose of acquisition, which is construction of housing colony. Before we deal with these grounds of challenge, we may advert to the factors which should be borne in mind while determining the market value of the acquired land, as provided under Section 23 of the Act. These are : -
(1.) The crucial date for determining the market value is the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Even post notification instances can be taken into account if they are -very proximate, genuine and the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchasers to pay higher price on account of resultant improvement in development prospects.