State of Bihar vs Chaman Kishore Prasad

Dhrub Narayan Upadhyay, J.—These appeals have been preferred against common judgment dated 25. 2.1993 and awards signed on. 6.3.1993, whereby batch of L.A. Ref Cases No. 14 of 1992 to 18 of 1992 have been disposed of by the Learned Special Judge (Land Acquisition) Ranchi, and the compensation amount against the land acquired have been enhanced by the learned court below. Facts of the case, in brief, giving rise to these appeals are as under:

It is an admitted and undisputed fact that the lands of the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Central Coalfields Limited in terms of the notification issued under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, and the valuation of the land was determined on the basis of the rates decided by the Government (Land Acquisition Officer) in the rate report.

It is submitted that the learned Special Judge has committed gross error in determining the compensation amount as no cogent reason has been assigned by the learned Special Judge, Land Acquisition, against enhancement of the amount of compensation payable on account of the acquisition of the land. The enhancement of compensation amount of the land acquired is arbitrary and without valid reasons and, therefore, liable to be set aside.

It was further submitted that the learned Special Judge (Land Acquisition) should not have relied on Ext. 1/A and 1/B for deciding the compensation amount against the land acquired, because these (Ext. 1/A and 1/B) are related to different nature of lands. As a matter of fact, the Land Acquisition Officer had collected prevalent market rates and on that basis, compensation was decided by the department. No objection u/s 9 of the Land Acquisition Act was filed by the land owners and, therefore, they were not entitled to bring LA reference cases before the learned Special Judge, Land Acquisition. The land(s) acquired are situated at remote area of the district and the learned court below has wrongly been swayed by consideration of propinquity while holding that the land acquired is nearer to the railway station and there was possibility of development of the area.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the contentions made on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the learned Special Judge, Land Acquisition has considered all the relevant documents and the evidence on record before coming to the conclusion for determining the compensation amount; it is not that he has taken into consideration Ext. 1/B; rather, he has considered Ext 1/A to decide the compensation amount. It is further pointed out that some of the lands in the same vicinity which were acquired were remotely situated in which compensation amount was fixed by the court at the rate of Rs. 975/- per decimal. The Land Acquisition Officer has based the rates of compensation on the basis of the rates decided by the Commissioner which is apparently too low, arbitrary and without basis. Thus, there is no merit in these appeals which are liable to be dismissed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the materials available on the record including the judgment impugned in these appeals preferred by the State.

Admittedly, the District Land Acquisition Officer while deciding the compensation amount of the land acquired has considered only the rates which the District Sub Registry was directed to consider for the purpose of collection of the revenue by way of stamps and fees. Learned Special Judge, Land Acquisition has elaborately discussed the reasons in paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment. He has considered Ext 1/A in which transaction of 07 decimals of land had been effected at the rate of Rs. 500/- (five hundred) per decimal. From evidence on record, it is apparent that the learned court below has observed that ''markets'' and ''railway station'' are nearer the land acquired.

In view of the discussions and the reasonings given by the learned Special Judge, Land Acquisition for enhancement of amount of compensation, I do not find any merit in these appeals which are devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed. For the reasons aforesaid, these appeals are dismissed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Special Judge, Land Acquisition, as well as the benefits provided under the law are upheld. The respondents shall be entitled to the benefits, accordingly, as provided in the impugned judgment. There will be no order as to costs.