NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1585 OF 2001      

Shri Shiv Ram …..Appellant

Vs.

The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.   ……Respondents

J U D G M E N T

HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J.

1. This appeal arises out of the following facts:

2. About  11.9  bighas  of  land  situated  in  two  villages,

Kasumpati-Junga  and  Patii-Rihana  was  notified  for

acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 (hereinafter called the “Act”) in the official Gazette

on            2nd April  1988,  23rd July 1988 and 28th

September 1988.  The Collector by his Award dated 28th

July 1988 granted a sum of Rs.43,330/- per bigha for

the  acquired  land.   The  claimant  thereafter  filed  a

reference before the District Judge, Shimla, who vide his

order dated 11th June 1992 determined the market value

at Rs.70,000/- per bigha rejecting the claimant’s plea for

the award of Rs.1,75,000/- per bigha.  The matter was

taken to the Division Bench of the High Court in First

Appeal  and  the  Bench  vide  its  judgment  dated  30th

December 1999 confirmed the compensation awarded by

the  District  Judge  on  reference  but  granted  enhanced

interest  and  solatium  as  per  the  entitlement  of  the

claimant.  The first appeal filed by the State Government

seeking a reduction in the compensation granted by the

District  Judge  was,  however,  dismissed.   The  present

appeal  at  the  instance  of  the  claimant  is  before  us

against the  judgment  and order  of  the  Division Bench

aforementioned.

2

3. Mr.  Agrawala,  the  learned  counsel  for  the  claimant-

appellant has argued that as per Notification of the year

1980 the adjoining land in the same villages had been

acquired  for  the  same  purpose  and  compensation  at

Rs.1.75 lakh per bigha minus 30% towards development

charges  had  been  awarded  by  the  High  Court  by  its

judgment Ext.PY.  He has, accordingly, pleaded that as

the present matter pertained to an acquisition of the year

1988, that is almost 8 years after the earlier acquisition,

a minimum of Rs.1.75 lakh was payable to the appellant.

Mr.  Sharma,  the  learned  counsel  for  the  respondents

has,  however,  pointed  out  that  this  matter  had  been

dealt with by the Division Bench and the plea had been

rejected by observing that there was no evidence to show

that  the  land acquired  in the  year  1980 and the  land

acquired by the impugned Notification was similar, of the

same quality, classification or potential for development

and in the absence of any such evidence merely because

some adjoining pieces of land had been granted a higher

3

compensation,  there  was  no  justification  in  granting

anything more in the present case.   

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

gone through the record.  We are of the opinion that the

observations  of  the  Division  Bench  with  regard  to  the

quality and the situation of the land acquired in the year

1980 and the  present acquisition are not quite accurate.

In this connection, we may refer to the evidence of the

land owner Lalit Kishore, who deposed that both these

lands  fell  in  the  municipal  area  and  adjoined  Chhota

Shimla Bazar and new colonies  and flats made by the

Shimla  Development  Authority  were  close  by and that

the  land  in  question  was  level  and  was  served  with

facilities like electricity, water, and sewerage etc.  Even

assuming for a moment that this statement could said to

be self-serving, we have chosen to consider the evidence

produced  by  the  respondent  State  itself.  We  refer  in

particular to the statements of Mangat Ram Patwari RW1

and Pratap Singh Kanoongo PW-2.  Mangat Ram stated

that  the  lands  acquired  by  the  two  Notifications  were

4

situated side by side and that the land in all 4 villages

which  were  under  acquisition  were  of  similar  quality.

Pratap Singh Kanoongo RW2 was even more forthcoming

when he stated:

“I  was posted in Shimla from 1986 to June 1990.  I  have  seen  all  the  villages  of  the acquired lands.  It is correct that Khalini falls by the side of Moza Patiyog.  Thereafter Patii Rehan  Rural  and  then  urban.   By  its  side village Kasumpati Jhunga falls.  The quality of  all  these  land  is  the  same  and  were acquired for the same purpose.  It is correct that  in  the  past  15  to  20  years  in  these villages private and Govt. colonies have come up  in  large  scale.  The  boundary  of  Moza Kasumpati  Jhunga  goes  up  to  Pari  Mahal. Govt.  colonies  have  been  constructed  right up to Pari Mahal.  In these villages land was acquired even for SDA.  In all these villages modern  facilities  are  available.   I  have  not brought  that  record  on  the  basis  of  which Exhibit-RC, RE and RG have been prepared. The  acquired  land  is  by  the  side  of  BCS school  in Patiyog.  The land of Patti  Rehana falls by the side of Brook Hurst. The land of Kusumpati  Jhunga  falls  by  the  side  of Kasumpati Bazar.”

5

5. These statements of the State’s witnesses clearly fortify

Mr. Agrawala’s submission that the land  subject to the

two acquisition i.e. in 1980, and 1988 were of the same

quality  and  situation  and  potential  for  use  and  were

situated adjacent to each other and belonged to the same

villages.   We  are,  therefore,  of  the  opinion  that  the

observations of the Division Bench that no evidence had

come on record to justify the payment of compensation at

Rs.1.75  lakh  per  bigha  minus  30  per  cent  are  not

justified.

6. We have also gone through the claim made by the land-

owner/appellant before the High Court.  We notice that

the claimant had sought compensation at Rs.1.30 lakh

per  bigha  and paid  court  fee  on  this  figure.   We  are,

therefore,  of  the  opinion  notwithstanding  the  fact  that

Mr. Agrawala is hesitatingly asking for Rs.5,00,000/- per

bigha  or  atleast  Rs.1.75  lakh  per  bigha  nothing  more

than the amount claimed in the first appeal before the

High Court is admissible.  As already mentioned above,

the  land  acquired  by  the  Notification  of  1980,

6

compensation  at  Rs.1.75  lakh  per  bigha  had  been

awarded with 30% cut towards development charges etc.

In view of the fact that the present acquisition was made

some 8 years later and a claim of Rs.1.30 lakh per bigha

has  been  made,  we  allow  this  appeal  and  direct  that

compensation at Rs.1.30 lakh per bigha shall be payable

to  the  appellant.  In  addition  to  the  enhanced

compensation,  the  claimant-appellant  shall  also  be

entitled  to  solatium  and  interest  on  the  enhanced

amount.  We, further, direct that the entire sum payable

to the appellant under this judgment will be defrayed to

him within a period  of  4  months from the date  of  the

supply  of  a  certified  copy  of  this  judgment  to  the

respondent.  There will, however, be no order as to costs.

……………………………..J. (DALVEER BHANDARI)

………………………………J (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

7

New Delhi, Dated: December 18,  2008

8