LAC, HPPWD, KULLU & OTHERS Vs. UTTAM RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as the lands of the claimants were acquired by the same Notification under the Land 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement, Yes. Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the purpose of acquisition is also the same. The reference petitions were consolidated and tried by the learned District Judge on common evidence as led in all the petitions. The purpose for acquisition was for construction of Manali-Kanyal road. Being dis-satisfied with the award made by the Land Acquisition Collector, the respondents-claimants filed petition under Section 18 of the Act. The learned Reference Court settled eight issues on the pleadings of the parties.

(2.) The basic grievance of the respondentclaimant was that the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was not inconsonance with the principles of Section 23(1-A) of the Act, the fruit bearing orchard standing on the acquired land was not properly valued, danga, supporting walls, had not been considered while working out the compensation payable, interest and solatium had not been paid, damage had been caused to the land of the respondentsclaimants by dumping the debris on the land of the petitioners. Five witnesses were examined by the respondents-claimants in support of the claim. Only one witness was examined on behalf of the respondent to prove on record Ex.RW-1/A, the sale deed purportedly depicting the true price of the land while Ex.RA was a sale deed was tendered in evidence and Ex.RB, copy of the jamabandi. The learned Reference Court, relying upon the evidence of PW-2 Ravi Chand, PW-3 Lal Chand, PW-4, Kunj Lal and PW-5 Man Mohan, who proved on record Ex.PW-2/B, Ex.PW-3/B, Ex.PW-4/B and Ex.PW-5/B, being sale deeds of land, fixed the fair compensation for the land. The learned Court has tabulated the value of the land:-

(3.) Learned Advocate General submits that the value which has been fixed is very high and is contrary to that which is proved on record vide Ex.RW-1/A. This submission cannot be accepted. Smt. Ijatu Devi wife of Shri Dot Ram proved on record this sale deed Ex.RW-1/A, dated 4.11.1991 and Jamabandi Ex.RW-1/B. She stated that she had sold the land for Rs.25,000/- and according to her, sale transaction was of her own free will. However, in cross-examination she stated that she was ill and therefore, she had sold the land at a cheap price. She is categoric in her statement while she says, "Main bimar thi isliye maine jamin saste mein bechi kyonki mughe paison ki jarurat thi " ¦ " ¦". She further states that the value of the land was not less than Rs.27,00/- per biswa.