Collector vs Dhanna and Others

Kawoosa, J.—These are two Civil 1st Miscellaneous Appeals bearing Nos: 53/91 and 54/91. These two appeals emanate from the land

acquisition proceedings started by Collector Assistant Commissioner, Land Acquisition Ravi Tawi Irrigation Complex, Kathua, who acquired the

suit land for the purpose of construction of Ravi Tawi Channel D19 Vajpur on the requisition of Executive Engineer, Tawi Canal Construction

Division. Land was acquired in pursuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of J and K Land Acquisition Act. After conducting the

proceedings under the aforementioned Act, Collector passed an award assessing the compensation at Rs. 10,000 per kanal for Mehra1 land and

Rs. 20.000/ per kanal for G. Mumkin land. Respondents not feeling satisfied with such rate of compensation, filed an application to the Collector

requesting himto make a reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act to the District Judge for enhancing the award amount from Rs.

10.000/ to Rs. 60.000/ per Kanal of Land. Reference was made by the Collector on 28th October, 1988 to District Judge, Jammu, who

transferred both cases to the Additional District Judge, Jammu. Additional District Judge, Jammu framed the following issues and recorded the

evidence of the both sides and decided the references vide his judgement dated 5th March, 1991 by virtue of which said court enhanced the

compensation from Rs. 10,0001 to Rs. 30.000/ per Kanal :

Issue No. 1 Whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector is in accordance with the market rate of the land prevalent at the time

of the acquisition ? OPD. Issue No. 2 In case, issue No. 1 is not proved, what was the market rate of the land in question at the time of its

acquisition ? OPP. Issue No. 3 Relief.

Aggrieved by the above court order dated 5th March, 1991 the present appellant has come up with these aforementioned appeals.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and I have gone through the record. The simple contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that

the respondents have failed to show the market value to the extent of enhanced amount prevailing in the year 1981. He has argued that the

respondent has tried to show the market value of the land from the year 1984 85 till date but he was bound to prove the enhanced rate of 1981

during which year the land has been acquired. I have gone through this contention. I think that the assertion made by the counsel for the appellant is

not tenable. Before dealing with the point I feel that Issue No. 1 has wrongly been drafted. Awarded amount was questioned by the respondent

before the Collector so it was he who was to be burdened with to prove the market value of the land in question and the present appellant was to

rebut the issue No. 1. However, the whole evidence has been recorded from both the sides and wrongly drafting of the issue has not in anyway

prejudiced the parties. Even in the memo of appeal also it has not been pointed out. I have gone through the evidence. Some of the witness like P.

W. 1 produced by the respondent has proved the rate of the land in Vijaypur as Rs. 1,00,000/ per kanal in 1985. Similarly P. W. 2 Dheru Ram

also has proved the rate of land as Rs. 4,000/ per marla in the year 198587. This witness has stated that his land was acquired in 1985. According

to PW5 the rate of the land in 198283 was Rs. 2,500/ Rs. 3,000/ per marla. It means in between Rs.50,00060,000/ per kanal. All these witnesses

no doubt have not given the rate prevalent in year 1981 but have proved the rates from the year 1985 and onwards on the higher side.

Learned District Judge, Jammu has rightly relied on the statement of P. W.2 Hashim Ali who in unequivocal term has deposed that his land

which was of Mumkin2 quality was acquired by the Collector on 25th April, 1980 and was awarded Rs. 30,000/ per Kanal. According to him the

land of respondents is Mera1 and is superior in quality and infront of the land of the witness. It according to the witness is near to road so it is

worth more than Rs. 30,000/ per kanal today. P. W.4 Chajju Ram also has stated that he sold less than a Maria For Rs. 9,000/. P. W. 6 also has

supported his case by deposing that the land in question in 1981 valued for Rs. 60,000/ to Rs. 70,000/ per Kanal.

I am unable to take an exception to the view taken by District Judge for enhancing the award. The enhanced award has been based on previous

acquisition case relating to comparable land. Land in dispute is more valuable and good in quality than the land for which the Collector has given

the award of Rs. 30,000/ per kanal to P. W.2 Hashim Ali in the year 1980. Applying the method of assessment of award in a case relating to

comparable land (as in Hashim Ali's case) is sound basis for assessing the award in a following acquisition case as in the present case. The view is

fortified by the Guahati High Court in case The Collector of Kamrup Vs. Ishfaque Hussain and another, AIR 1978 Gauhati 50. I have gone

through this authority. This authority is based on a view taken by the Apex Court in case (The State of Madras Vs. A. M. Nanjan and another1,

AIR 1976 Supreme Court 651. I . this case Apex Court has held that the awards given by the Collector are atleast relevant material and may be in

the nature of admission as with regard to the value of land on behalf of the State and if the land involved in the awards is comparable land in the

reasonable proximity of the acquired land, the rates formed in the said document would be reliable material to afford the basis to work upon for

determination of compensation on the later date. From the above it is obvious that the award granted by the Collector in a previous case is to be

taken a guideline in the similar circumstances. Here in this case the land taken by the Collector is better in quality rs Mera1 while the land acquired

from Hashim Ali is second in quality G. Mumkin. Not only this, land in the present case is situated in front of the land involved in Hashim Ali's case.

Besides all this it is amply proved that in the year 1984 said land was being sold for Rs. 1,00,000/ per Kanal and now it values at Rs. 3,00,000/

per kanal. For these reasons, therefore, I am convinced that judgement under appeal does not suffer from any flaw and requires no exception to be

taken. The appeals are dismissed.