The State Of H.P. & Another vs Dula Ram (Since Deceased) Thorough His … on 7 May, 2026

Himachal Pradesh High Court

The State Of H.P. & Another vs Dula Ram (Since Deceased) Thorough His … on 7 May, 2026

Author: Sushil Kukreja

Bench: Sushil Kukreja

1 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:15247 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

RFA No. 380 & 381 of 2008

.

Reserved on:24.04.2026

Decided on:07.05.2026

1. RFA No. 380 of 2008:

The State of H.P. & another ….Appellants.

Versus
Dula Ram (since deceased) thorough his LRs.

…Respondent(s).

of

2. RFA No. 381 of 2008:

The State of H.P. & another ….Appellants.

Versus
Budhi Singh (since deceased) thorough his LRs.

                  rt                            ...Respondent(s).

    Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
_________________________________________________

For the appellants/State: Mr. Balvinder Singh Ballu, Deputy
Advocate General.

Respondents in RFA No. 380 of 2008 ex parte.

For proposed LRs No. 1(a) to

1(d) in RFA No. 381 of 2008:

Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate.

Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

Since both these appeals are the offshoots of

award, dated 27.06.2008, passed by learned Additional District

Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala (hereinafter referred to as

“the learned Reference Court”), the same are taken up together

and being disposed of by a common judgment.

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 14:48:41 :::CIS

2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:15247 )

2. The appellant/State of H.P. & another, who were

respondents before the learned Reference Court, preferred the

.

instant appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act

(for short “the Act”) against award dated 27.06.2008, passed by

learned Reference Court, whereby the petitioners, i.e., Dulo

Ram and Budhi Singh, who were petitioners/claimants before

of
the learned Reference Court (hereinafter referred to as

“petitioners/claimants”) were granted enhanced compensation,
rt
with a prayer that the instant appeals be allowed and the

impugned award be set-aside.

3. The facts giving rise to the instant appeals are that

the land of petitioner-Dulo Ram, comprised in Khasra No.

958/381/1, measuring 0-02-11 hectares and that of petitioner-

Budhi Singh, comprised in Khasra No. 382, 383, 391,

measuring 0-03-55 hectares, situated in Mohal Kandreth,

Mauza Ichhi, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., was

acquired for construction of Mastpur-Icchi Road, vide

notification dated 30.12.1995, issued under Section 4 of the

Act, which was also published in daily news paper.

Subsequently, notification under Sections 6 and 7 was issued

on 15.05.1996, which was also duly published in daily

newspaper. Consequently, possession of total land measuring

::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 14:48:41 :::CIS
3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:15247 )

0-21-00 hectares was taken under Section 8 of the Act and it

was acquired with description of Kulhi Awal measuring 0-13-69

.

hectares, Banjar Kadeem, measuring 0-00-88 hectares,

khadeter measuring 0-02-42 hectares, Charagah Durkhtan,

measuring 0-01-22 hectares and Gair Mumkin Rasta

measuring 0-02-79 hectares. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition

of
Collector, passed the award and granted compensation

@Rs.1,17,039/- per hectare on the basis of market value

alongwith
rt
other statutory benefits and total award of

Rs.2,29,046/- was passed on 26.06.1998.

4. The petitioners/claimants, feeling aggrieved, filed

reference petitions under Section 18 of the Act before the

learned Reference Court for enhancement of the compensation

amount and sought higher compensation at the rate of

Rs.3,00,000/- per kanal, including enhancement of interest.

The learned Reference Court, after considering all the material,

passed the impugned award, dated 27.06.2008, whereby the

petitioners/claimants were held entitled for enhanced

compensation at the rate of Rs.19,23,076/- per hectare for the

acquired land alongwith other statutory benefits. Hence, the

instant appeals preferred by the appellants/State against the

::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 14:48:41 :::CIS
4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:15247 )

impugned award with a prayer that the appeals be allowed and

the impugned award be set-aside.

.

5. The learned Deputy Advocate General for the

appellants/State contended that the impugned award is wrong,

illegal and against the material placed and proved on record

and the learned Reference Court gravely erred in assessing the

of
market value @ Rs.19,23,076/- per hectare. He further

contended that impugned award is based on surmises,
rt
conjectures and hypotheses, thus the same is liable to be set-

aside. He also contended that the learned Reference Court

had grossly misread and mis-appreciated the oral as well as

documentary evidence on record and cogent evidence was

ignored. Lastly, he prayed that the impugned award be set-

side by allowing the instant appeals.

6. Conversely, learned Counsel for proposed LRs No.

1(a) to 1(d) in RFA No. 381 of 2008, supported the impugned

award and contended that the impugned award does not suffer

from any legal infirmity and the same has been passed by the

learned Reference Court after properly appreciating the facts

and law. He prayed that the instant appeals, being without

merits, be dismissed.

::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 14:48:41 :::CIS

5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:15247 )

7. I have heard the learner Deputy Advocate General

for the appellants/State, learned counsel for proposed LRs No.

.

1(a) to 1(d), in RFA No. 381 of 2008 and carefully examined

the entire records.

8. As per the settled principle of law, compensation for

the land acquired has to be determined at market value. Market

of
value is the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing

seller for the property having due regard to its existing condition
rt
with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities

when led out in most advantageous manner excluding any

advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for which the

property is compulsorily acquired. The determination of market

value is the prediction of an economic event viz. a price

outcome of hypothetical sale expressed in terms of

probabilities. For ascertaining the market value of the land, the

potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into

consideration. Potentiality means capacity or possibility for

changing or developing into state of actuality.

9. In Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai (deceased) through

his heirs & LRs & others v. State of Gujarat (1989) 4 SCC

250, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the market value of a

property for the purpose of Section 23 of the Act is the price at

::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 14:48:41 :::CIS
6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:15247 )

which the property changes hands from a willing seller to a

willing purchaser, but not too anxious a buyer, dealing at arms

.

length. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as

under:

“4. ……….The market value of a piece of property for purpose
of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act is stated to be
the price at which the property changes hands from a
willing seller to a willing, but not too anxious a buyer,
dealing at arms length. Prices fetched for similar lands

of
with similar advantages and potentialities under bona fide
transactions of sale at or about the time of the preliminary
notification are the usual and, indeed the best, evidences
of market value.”

10. In Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs & others vs.
rt
State of Haryana & another, (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases

568, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the market value is

the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller

for the property having due regard to its existing conditions

with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities

when led out in most advantages manner, excluding any

advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for which the

property is compulsorily acquired. In considering market

value, disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the

urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy should be

disregarded. The question whether a land has potential value

or not, is primarily one of the facts depending upon its

condition, situation, user to which it is put or is reasonably

::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 14:48:41 :::CIS
7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:15247 )

capable of being put and proximity to residential, commercial

or industrial areas or institutions. The existing amenities like,

.

water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether

near about town is developing or has prospect of development

have to be taken into consideration. The relevant portion of

the aforesaid judgment reads as under:

of
“4. ……The expression “market value” has been the
subject-matter of consideration by this Court in
several cases. The market value is the price
that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing
rt seller for the property having due regard to its
existing condition with all its existing
advantages and its potential possibilities when
led out in most advantageous manner excluding
any advantage due to carrying out of the

scheme for which the property is compulsorily
acquired. In considering market value
disinclination of the vendor to part with his land
and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to
buy should be disregarded. The guiding star
would be the conduct of hypothetical willing

vendor who would offer the land and a
purchaser in normal human conduct would be
willing to buy as a prudent purchaser in normal
human conduct would be willing to buy as a
prudent man in normal market conditions but

not an anxious dealing at arm’s length nor
façade of sale nor fictitious sale brought about
in quick succession or otherwise to inflate the

market value………….

5. For ascertaining the market value of the land,
the potentiality of the acquired land should also

be taken into consideration. Potentiality means
capacity or possibility for changing or
developing into state of actuality. It is well
settled that market value of a property has to be
determined having due regard to its existing
condition with all its existing advantages and its
potential possibility when led out in its most
advantageous manner. The question whether a
land has potential value or not, is primarily one
of fact depending upon its condition, situation,
user to which it is put or is reasonably capable
of being put and proximity to residential,
commercial or industrial areas or institutions.

The existing amenities like water, electricity,
possibility of their further extension, whether
near about town is developing or has prospect

::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 14:48:41 :::CIS
8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:15247 )

of development have to be taken into
consideration………….”

11. For ascertaining market value of the acquired land,

.

the Court can no doubt rely upon such sale transactions, which

would offer a reasonable basis to fix the price, for which

purpose, a sale transaction relating to a smaller parcel of land

can be considered for the purpose of assessing the market

of
value in respect of a large tract of land, after making appropriate

deductions such as for development of land, for providing space
rt
for roads, sewers, drains, expenses involved in formation of a

layout, lump- sum payments, as well as for the waiting period

required for selling the sites that would be formed and other

expenses involved therein, but before doing so, the evidentiary

value of such a sale deed is required to be carefully scrutinized.

As held in the case of Land Acquisition Officer vs. Nookala

Rajamallu reported as (2003) 12 SCC 334, in order to adopt

the price reflected in the sale deed, the following conditions are

required to be met:

“9. It can be broadly stated that the element of
speculation is reduced to a minimum if the
underlying principles of fixation of market value
with reference to comparable sales are made:

(i) when sale is within a reasonable time of
the date of notification under Section
4(1);

(ii) it should be a bona fide transaction;

(iii) it should be of the land acquired or of the
land adjacent to the land acquired; and

(iv) it should possess similar advantages

::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 14:48:41 :::CIS
9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:15247 )

10. It is only when these factors are present,
it can merit a consideration as a
comparable case (see Special Land
Acquisition Officer v. T. Adinarayan Setty
AIR 1959 SC 429).”

.

12. In Union of India vs. Pramod Gupta (dead) by

LRs & others, 2005 (12) SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

held that the best method, as is well-known, would be the

amount which a willing purchaser would pay to the owner of the

of
land. In the absence of any direct evidence, the Court,

however, may take recourse to various other known methods.

rt
Evidence admissible therefor inter alia would be the sale

deeds, judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisitions

of lands made in the same village and/or neighboring villages.

Such a judgment/award in the absence of any other evidence

like deed of sale, report of the expert and other relevant

evidence would have only evidentiary value. The relevant

portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:

“24. While determining the amount of compensation

payable in respect of the lands acquired by the
State, the market value therefor indisputably has to
be ascertained. There exist different modes therefor.

25. The best method, as is well known, would be the
amount which a willing purchaser would pay to the
owner of the land. In absence of any direct
evidence, the court, however, may take recourse to
various other known methods. Evidences
admissible therefor inter alia would be judgments
and awards passed in respect of acquisitions of
lands made in the same village and/or neighboring
villages. Such a judgment and award, in the
absence of any other evidence like the deed of sale,
report of the expert and other relevant evidence
would have only evidentiary value.”

::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 14:48:41 :::CIS

10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:15247 )

13. In the instant case, the petitioners/claimants had

produced sale deed, Ex. AW-2/A, dated 08.07.1994, whereas

.

the respondents (appellants herein)had produced on record

average value of land Ex RW-1/A, for the year 1995-96 and

tendered in evidence copies of sale deeds, Ex. RA, dated

08.03.1995, Ex. RB, dated 21.11.1995 and Ex. RC, dated

of
14.01.1995.

14. The perusal of Ex. AW-2/A clearly shows that it was
rt
executed on 08.07.1994 vide which 11 marlas of land, situated

in Revenue Estate Mangrehd Mauza Ichhi Tehsil and District

Kangra, H.P., was sold for Rs.40,000/-. Sale deed, Ex. RA,

dated 08.03.1995, was executed for Rs.18,000/-, whereby 0-

02-81 hectares of land was sold. Through sale deed, Ex. RB,

dated 21.11.1995, 0-00-53 hectares of land was sold for

Rs.500/- and in sale deed, Ex.RC, dated 14.02.1995, land

measuring 0-00-97hectares of land was sold for Rs.6000/- and

the land involved in all the aforesaid sale deeds, Exs. RA, RB

and RC was situated in Mauza Tika Ichhi Khas.

15. It is a settled law that where there are various sale

deeds, then highest of the sale exemplars has to be taken into

consideration and not by averaging of different types of sale

transactions. In State of Punjab & another vs. Hans Raj

::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 14:48:41 :::CIS
11 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:15247 )

(dead) by LRs Sohan Singh & others, (1994) 5 SCC 734, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

.

“4. Having given our anxious consideration to the

respective contentions, we are of the considered view
that the learned Single Judge of the High Court
committed a grave error in working out average price
paid under the sale transactions to determine the
market value of the acquired land on that basis. As the

method of averaging the prices fetched by sales of
different lands of different kinds at different times, for
fixing the market value of the acquired land, if followed,
could bring about a figure of price which may not at all
be regarded as the price to be fetched by sale of

of
acquired land. One should not have, ordinarily recourse
to such method. … … … … …”

16. In Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa &
rt
another, (2010) 13 SCC 710, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has

held as under:

“20. The legal position is that even where there are several
exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the
highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide
transaction, will be considered. Where however there

are several sales of similar lands whose prices range in
a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken,
as representing the market price. But where the values
disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different,
it can only lead to an inference that they are with

reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale
is on account of under-valuation or other price
depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be

resorted to. We may refer to two decisions of this Court
in this behalf.

21. In M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur v. Collector,

(1969) 1 MLJ 45 (SC), a three-Judge Bench of this Court
observed that the proper method for evaluation of
market value is by taking the highest of the exemplars
and not by averaging of different types of sale
transactions. This Court held:

“It seems to us that there is substance in the first
contention of Mr. Ram Reddy. After all, when the
land is being compulsorily taken away from a
person, he is entitled to say that he should be
given the highest value which similar land in the
locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide
transaction entered into between a willing
purchaser and a willing seller near
about the time of the acquisition. It is not disputed
that the transaction represented by Exhibit R-19
was a few months prior to the notification under

::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 14:48:41 :::CIS
12 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:15247 )

section 4, that it was a bona fide transaction and
that it was entered into between a willing
purchaser and a willing seller. The land comprised
in the sale deed is 11grounds and was sold at
Rs.1,961 per ground. The land covered by Exhibit-

.

27 was also sold before the
notification, but after the land comprised in

ExhibitR-19 was sold. It is true that this land was
sold atRs.1,096/- per ground. This, however, is
apparently because of two circumstances. One is
that betterment levy at Rs.500 per ground had to

be paid by the vendee and the other that the land
comprised in it is very much more extensive, that
is about 93 grounds or so. Whatever that may be,
it seems to us to be only fair that where sale deed,
pertaining to different

of
transactions are relied on behalf of the
Government, that representing the highest value
should be preferred to the rest unless there are
strong circumstances justifying a different course.
In any case we see no reason why an average of
two sale deeds should have been taken in this
rt
case.”

22. In State of Punjab v. Hans Raj, (1994) 5 SCC 734, this

Court held:

“4. Having given our anxious consideration
to the respective contentions, we are of the
considered view that the learned single Judge of
the High Court committed a grave error in working

out average price paid under the sale transactions
to determine the market value of the acquired land
on that basis. As the method of averaging the
prices fetched by sales of different lands of
different kinds at different times, for fixing the

market value of the acquired land, if followed,
could bring about a figure of price which may not
at all be regarded as the price to be fetched by

sale of acquired land. One should not have,
ordinarily recourse to such method. It is well
settled that genuine and bonafide sale
transactions in respect of the land under

acquisition or in its absence the bona fide sale
transactions proximate to the point of acquisition
of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the
acquired lands possessing similar value or utility
taken place between a willing vendee and the
willing vendor which could be expected to reflect
the true value, as agreed between reasonable
prudent persons acting in the normal
market conditions are the real basis to determine
the market value.”

23. Therefore, we are of the view that the averaging of
the prices under the two Sale Deeds was not justified.
The Sale Deed dated 31.1.1990 ought to have been
excluded for the reasons stated above. That means
compensation for the acquired lands had to be fixed
only with reference to the Sale Deed dated30.8.1989

::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 14:48:41 :::CIS
13 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:15247 )

relied upon by the Land Acquisition Collector which will
be Rs.57.50 per sq.m. As the said market value has been
fixed with reference to comparable bharad land with
fruit trees, the question of again separately awarding
any compensation for the trees situated in the acquired

.

land does not arise.”

17. In the case on hand, since sale deed, Ex. AW-2/A,

is the highest of the exemplars, therefore, in view of the

aforesaid judgments, the sale deed, Ex. AW-2/A has to be

of
taken into consideration for determining the market value of the

land under acquisition. As observed earlier, sale deed, Ex.

AW-2/A, was executed 08.07.1994, vide which 11 marlas of
rt
land, situated in Revenue Estate Mangrehd Mauza Ichhi Tehsil

and District Kangra, H.P., was sold for Rs.40,000/-.Therefore,

in view of the sale deed, Ex. AW-2/A, the market value of the

land is determined at Rs.18,93,900/- per hectare. However,

the learned Reference Court had wrongly calculated the market

value of the acquired land @ Rs.19,23,076/- instead of

Rs.18,93,900/-per hectare on the basis of sale deed, Ex. AW-

2/A.

18. The learned Deputy Advocate General for the

appellant/State contended that the learned Reference Court

had erred in not deducting any amount while assessing the

market value of the land in question. However, this contention

is devoid of any force as it is a settled law that no deduction will

::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 14:48:41 :::CIS
14 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:15247 )

be permissible where the land is acquired for the purpose of

construction of the road and for laying railway line etc.. In The

.

Land Acquisition Collector vs. Bangalu @ Daulat Ram,

2025 (1) Shimla Law Cases 146, this Court has held as under:

19. In Nelson Fernandes & others vs. Special Land

Acquisition Officer, South Goa & others, (2007) 9 Supreme

of
Court Cases 447, while dealing with the case where the land

was acquired for laying a railway line, the Hon’ble Apex Court
rt
held that no deduction by way of development charges was

permissible, as there was no question of any development

thereof. The relevant portion of the judgment (supra) is as

under:

“30. … … that where lands are acquired for
specific purposes, deduction by way of development
charges is permissible. In the instant case, acquisition

is for laying a railway line. Therefore, the question of
development thereof would not arise.”

20. Thus, the contention of learned Deputy Advocate

General cannot be upheld for the reasons firstly, that no

deduction will be permissible keeping in view the purpose of

acquisition involved in the instant appeals, secondly, every inch

of acquired land was put to the same use for which it was

acquired.

21. Since in the instant case also the land was acquired

for the purpose of construction of Mastpur-Icchi Road, no

::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 14:48:41 :::CIS
15 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:15247 )

deduction will be permissible. Hence, the market value of the

acquired land is assessed @ Rs.18,93,900/- per hectare in

.

terms of sale deed, Ex.AW-2/A.

22. The learned Deputy Advocate General for the State

lastly contended that the learned Reference Court has erred in

awarding uniform rate for the entire land by ignoring the

of
classification and nature of the land. However, this contention

of the learned Deputy Advocate General is also devoid of any
rt
force. It is a settled law that where the entire area is similarly

situated, the value of the land under acquisition is to be

assessed as a single unit irrespective of its classification and

nature ignoring the purpose to which it was being put prior to

the acquisition, as well as to the one it is likely to be put

thereafter. In Gulabi & etc. vs. State of H.P., AIR 1998 HP 9,

it has been held as under:

“As a result of this discussion it is held that the market value of the
land on the date of acquisition is Rs.4,000/- per biswa. In this

context it is further held that the value of the land under acquisition
is to be assessed irrespective of its classification and nature
ignoring the purpose to which it was being put prior to the
acquisition, as well as to the one it is likely to be put thereafter,
Consequently, the appellants are held entitled to compensation at
the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per biswa uniformly for all qualities of land
and it is ordered accordingly. In taking this view, we are guided by
the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Bhagwathula
Samanna and others Vs. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition
Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality, and the relevant abstracts
from the said judgment are as under (paras 7, 11, 13):–

“In awarding compensation in acquisition
proceedings, the Court has necessarily to
determine the market value of the land as on the
date of the relevant Notification. It is useful to
consider the value paid for similar land at the

::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 14:48:41 :::CIS
16 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:15247 )

material time under genuine transactions. The
market value envisages the price which a willing
purchaser may pay under bona fide transfer to a
willing seller. The land value can differ depending
upon the extent and nature of the land sold. A fully

.

developed small plot in a important locality may
fetch a higher value than a larger area in an

undeveloped condition and situated in a remote
locality. By comparing the price shown in the
transactions all variables have to be taken into
consideration. The transaction in regard to smaller

property cannot, therefore, be taken as a real basis
for fixing the compensation for larger tracts of
property. In fixing the market value of a large
property on the basis of a sale transaction for
smaller property, generally a deduction is given

of
taking into consideration the expenses required for
development of the larger tract to make smaller
plots within that area in order to compare with the
small plots dealt with under the sale transaction.

The principle of deduction in the land value
rt
covered by the comparable sale is thus adopted in
order to arrive at the market value of the acquired
land. In applying the principle it is necessary to
consider all relevant facts. It is not the extent of the

area covered under the acquisition, the only
relevant factor. Even in the vast area there may be
land which is fully developed having all amenities
and situated in an advantageous position. If
smaller area within the large tract is already
developed and suitable for building purposes and

have in its vicinity roads, drainage, electricity,
communications etc., then the principle of
deduction simply for the reason that it is part of the
large tract acquired, may not be justified.

The proposition that large area of land cannot
possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which
small plots are sold is not absolute proposition and

in given circumstances it would be permissible to
take into account the price fetched by the small
plots of land. If the larger tract of land because of
advantageous position is capable of being used for

the purpose for which the smaller plots are used
and is also situated in a developed area with little
or no requirement of further development, the
principle of deduction of the value for purpose of
comparison is not warranted.

In the instant case it has been satisfactorily shown
on the evidence on record that the land has
facilities of road and other amenities and is
adjacent to a developed colony and in such
circumstances it is possible to utilize the entire
area in question as house sites. In respect of the
land acquired for the road, the same advantages
are available and it did not require any further
development. Therefore, no deduction could be
made on ground, that large tract of land is
required.”

::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 14:48:41 :::CIS

17 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:15247 )

23. In Land Acquisition Officer vs. L Kamalamma

(1998) 2 SCC 385, H.P. Housing Board vs. Ram Lal &

.

others 2003(3) Sim.L.C. 64, Executive Engineer & Anr. vs.

Dilla Ram Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 1007), it was held that when

the entire land acquired belongs to one block, classification of

the same into different categories is not reasonable. In case

of
acquired land is to be used/developed as a single unit for a

purpose having no relevancy with quality of land, the
rt
classification of land completely loses its significance.

24. In the case on hand also as the land was acquired

as the single unit for the public purpose, i.e., for construction of

Mastpur-Icchi Road, therefore, the value of the land under

acquisition is to be assessed as a single unit irrespective of its

nature and classification ignoring the purpose to which it was

being put prior to the acquisition, as well as to the one it is likely

to be put thereafter Therefore, in view of the aforesaid

authoritative pronouncements of law, the contention of the

learned Deputy Advocate General that the learned Reference

Court has erred in awarding uniform rate for the entire land by

ignoring the classification and nature of the land deserves to be

rejected.

::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 14:48:41 :::CIS

18 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:15247 )

25. As a result of my aforesaid discussion, it is held that

the market value of the land on the date of acquisition was

.

Rs.18,93,900/- per hectare. Consequently, the appellants are

held entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.18,93,900/-per

hectare uniformly for all qualities of land, irrespective of its

classification, along with all statutory benefits. Rest of the

of
terms of the impugned award shall remain the same.

26. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove,
rt
the appeals, are partly allowed and accordingly disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s)

disposed of.

( Sushil Kukreja )

Judge
7th May, 2026
(virender)

::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 14:48:41 :::CIS