Reference Court Inquiry To Determine Land Acquisition Compensation Is Independent, Not An Appeal Over Award Passed By Collector: Himachal Pradesh HC

Justice Satyen Vaidya observed:

"The Reference Court does not sit as a Court of appeal over the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector. In Ashok Kumar and another vs. State of Haryana (2016) 4 SCC 544, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is the duty of the Court to award just and fair compensation taking into consideration the true market value and other relevant factors, irrespective of the claim made by the land owner and there is no cap on maximum rate of compensation that can be awarded by the Court and the Courts are not restricted to awarding only that amount as has been claimed by the land owners/applicants in their application before it."

The observation comes in an appeal preferred by a landowner whose property was acquired for construction of Koldam Hydro Project and compensation was granted keeping in mind one-storey construction.

The Appellant claimed that the Collector did not take into consideration first and second floor of the building. Hence, the matter reached the Reference Court which though held that the said floors were in existence prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, however, dismissed the petition without awarding any compensation for the said floors.

In appeal, the High Court noted that the Reference Court had found the evidence led by the appellant, as to existence of first and second floor of the building prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, as reliable and cogent. Whereas, the contrary stand taken by the respondents was disbelieved. Thus, the Reference Court did not accept that the structure of the appellant was having only one storey at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Still, the reference petition was dismissed merely on the ground that the appellant had failed to prove the market value of the acquired property.

"Keeping in view the aforesaid exposition of law, it can be said with certainty that learned Reference Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under law. Once the learned Reference Court had arrived at the conclusion that the structure owned by the appellant had three floors before the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, it was incumbent upon such count to determine the just and fair market value of first and second floors of said structure. Merely because the learned Reference Court had found the evidence of appellant deficient in proving the market value of the structure in question, the reference petition could not have been dismissed. Learned Reference Court could not have ignored such basis."

In view of the above, the appeal was allowed.

Case Title : SH. SUBHASH CHAND v LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & Ors.

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (HP) 27

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment