After Admitting Lease, Defendant Cannot Turn Around and Call It Forged—Contradictory Stand at Advanced Trial Stage Impermissible: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Revision Against Rejection of Amendment Plea Dismissed Employee Has No Right to Leave Encashment Under Statutory Rules: Punjab and Haryana High Court Section 13 of Gambling Act Is Cognizable — Magistrate Can Take Cognizance on Police Report: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Surveyor’s Report Not Sacrosanct, Arbitral Tribunal Has Jurisdiction to Apply Mind Independently: Bombay High Court Dismisses Insurer’s Challenge to Award in Fire Damage Dispute Anti-Suit Injunction in Matrimonial Dispute Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Refuses to Stall UK Divorce Proceedings Filed by Wife Res Ipsa Loquitur Not a Substitute for Proof of Negligence: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Fatal Road Accident Case NSA Detention Doesn’t Bar Framing of Charges If Prima Facie Evidence Exists: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Charges in Ajnala Police Station Violence Case Continued Contractual Service Despite Sanctioned Posts Is Unfair Labour Practice: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of ECG Technicians After 15 Years Will Duly Proved Even If Witnesses Forget Details After Eight Years: Madras High Court Validates Bequest, Sets Aside Partition Decree Writ Petition Not Maintainable Where Commercial Appeal Remedy Exists: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Petition, Permits Conversion Under Commercial Courts Act Circumstantial Evidence Must Be Cogent, But Caste-Based Offences Demand Specific Intent: Supreme Court Draws Line Between Heinous Crimes and Caste Atrocities Court Must Step into Testator’s Shoes, Not Substitute His Intent: Supreme Court Upholds Will Excluding One Daughter Production of Arbitration Clause is Enough - Not Conduct Mini-Trials on Capacity or Consortium Structure: Supreme Court Title to Property Must Be Proven by Evidence, Not Just Claimed by Deed: Supreme Court Strikes Down Injunction Order Rejecting Police Investigation Is Not Interlocutory Where It Affects Complainant’s Right to Fair Probe in Murder Case: Madhya Pradesh High Court Restores Revision in 156(3) Application Rejection Conviction Cannot Rest On Contradictions, Hostility And Conjecture: Supreme Court Acquits Seven Accused In 2010 Village Murder Power to Lower NEET Percentile Lies Only With Centre - States Can’t Dilute NEET by Administrative Letters: Supreme Court Imposed 10 Crore Cost On Private Dental College Identification Without TIP, Electronic Records Without 65B Certificate – Conviction Set Aside: Patna High Court Nothing Inflicts A Deeper Wound On Our Constitutional Culture Than A State Official Running Berserk Regardless Of Human Rights: Jharkhand High Court Orders ₹1.5 Lakh Interim Compensation Identification Vitiated, Diamonds Not Produced, Last Seen Theory Unreliable: Bombay High Court Acquits Two in 2011 Diamond Courier Murder Dishonour Due to ‘Account Blocked’ Not Attributable to Drawer—No Offence Under Section 138 NI Act: Delhi High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act Cannot Be Rebutted By Mere Assertions: Delhi High Court Affirms Conviction In 32-Year-Old Cheque Bounce Case Accused Cannot Demand Documents During Investigation Merely to Assist in Answering Queries: Delhi High Court Upholds Dismissal of S.91 CrPC Plea in Bank Fraud Probe Once a Person is a Major, They Are Free to Choose Their Partner – Absence of Marriage No Ground To Deny Protection: Allahabad High Court Connivance Can’t Be Washed Away by Exoneration: P&H High Court Upholds Penalty on Forest Guard Despite Enquiry Clean Chit Disciplinary Authority Cannot Override Enquiry Officer’s Clean Chit Without Hearing the Employee: Madhya Pradesh High Court Remands Termination for Procedural Lapse Appointment Secured by Misstating Marks Is Void Ab Initio; Human Error No Excuse Where Advantage Gained: Allahabad High Court Appeal Maintainable Despite Modified MACT Award — Kerala High Court Clarifies Scope of Appellate Review in Motor Accident Claims Signature Alone Doesn’t Prove Debt: Kerala High Court Upholds Acquittal in Cheque Bounce Case, Rejects Blanket Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act

Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds ₹25,000 Per Kanal Compensation for Land Acquired for Nangal-Talwara Railway Line, Dismisses Railway’s Appeal

26 November 2024 11:46 AM

By: Deepak Kumar


In a judgment delivered on November 18, 2024, the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the General Manager, Northern Railway, challenging the enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The dispute arose over land acquired for the construction of the Nangal–Talwara Railway Line in village Raisary Upperli, District Una, Himachal Pradesh.

The appeal, Regular First Appeal No. 162 of 2008, sought to set aside the Reference Court’s award dated September 29, 2007, which had increased the compensation for the acquired land to ₹25,000 per kanal. The Land Acquisition Collector had earlier categorized the land and awarded compensation based on its classification, with rates ranging from ₹787.07 to ₹15,872.75 per kanal. Dissatisfied, the claimants had approached the Reference Court, which uniformly enhanced the compensation across all categories of land.

Uniform Market Value Applied Due to Single Public Purpose
The High Court, presided over by Justice Sushil Kukreja, held that the Reference Court’s decision to uniformly enhance the compensation was justified. The land was acquired for a single public purpose—the construction of the railway line—and thus, the classification of land had no relevance. The Court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Nelson Fernandes v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2007) 9 SCC 447, which held that no deductions for development charges are applicable when land is acquired for public purposes like railway lines, as there is no question of further development.

Justice Kukreja noted that the acquired land was uniformly used for the construction of the railway line, and applying different compensation rates based on land classification would be unjust. The Court emphasized that the Reference Court had rightly determined the market value of the acquired land, taking into account its proximity to schools, factories, and residential areas.

The High Court relied on evidence presented by the claimants to uphold the enhanced compensation. Witnesses, including PW-1 (a registration clerk), proved sale deeds from the area, which established that the market value of similar land in the vicinity justified the enhanced rate of ₹25,000 per kanal. Other witnesses, including PW-2, PW-3, and PW-4, testified to the strategic location of the acquired land near schools and residential areas, further supporting the Reference Court’s findings.

The High Court also referred to a co-ordinate bench judgment in General Manager, Northern Railway v. Rajneesh Kumar & Others (RFA No. 378 of 2012), where similar facts and circumstances were involved. In that case, the Court had upheld the enhancement of compensation for land acquired for the same railway line. Justice Kukreja emphasized the need for consistency in judicial decisions, noting that the earlier judgment provided persuasive authority for dismissing the present appeal.


The High Court concluded that the Reference Court’s award was fair, reasonable, and reflective of the true market value of the acquired land. The appeal filed by the Northern Railway was dismissed as devoid of merit. The Court observed that the enhanced compensation was appropriate, given the evidence of market rates and the uniform use of the land for public purposes.

This judgment underscores the principle that compensation for land acquired for public purposes must reflect its fair market value, without undue reliance on land classifications when the land is uniformly utilized. By upholding the enhanced compensation, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed the rights of landowners to just and equitable recompense under the Land Acquisition Act.
 

Date of decision: 18 November 2024

Latest Legal News