AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice Mungeshwar Sahoo
The State of Bihar has filed this appeal against the judgment and award dated 07.06.1988 passed by Sri Gopi Nath Chandra, District Judge, Nawadah in Land Acquisition Case No.180 of 1985 enhancing the rate of compensation. The State of Bihar acquired large chunk of lands of various villages for the purpose of Phulwariya Jalashaya Scheme. In the said acquisition, the lands of village Bigha, P.S.- Rajauli, District- Nawadah was also acquired. Various awards were prepared. The claimants filed application u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act giving rise to various Land Acquisition Cases. Out of the said Land Acquisition Cases, 13 Land Acquisition Cases were disposed of by this common judgment and award. It appears that the other First Appeals were withdrawn by the State of Bihar because the valuations of the other First Appeals were less than Rs.1 lakh. So far the present First Appeal is concerned, the valuation of the appeal is more than Rs.1 lakh and, therefore, it is heard on merit.
In this First Appeal arising out of L.A. Case No.180 of 1985, 10 acres of land was acquired for which compensation awarded at Rs.1,36,438.87 by the Land Acquisition Officer. The claimants filed application claiming Rs.600 per decimal. The said application was referred to the Land Acquisition Judge.
The State of Bihar neither filed any objection nor produced any evidence.
After considering the evidences and materials produced by the claimants-respondents, the Land Acquisition Judge fixed the market value of the lands acquired at Rs.250 per decimal for Dhanhar land, Rs.200 per decimal for Bhit land and Rs.300 per decimal for Sahan land on the basis of Exhibit 1.
The learned A.C. to S.C.6 raised only one question that the lands under Exhibit 1 is not similar to the lands acquired and, therefore, the learned court below could not have made the basis for determining the rate of land acquired in the case.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the question arises for consideration is as to "whether the compensation awarded by the learned Land Acquisition Judge is proper, just and correct or it is exorbitant?"
It may be mentioned here that the State of Bihar neither filed any objection nor produced any evidence contrary to the evidences produced by the claimants. The claimants examined 4 witnesses. All the witnesses have stated that the lands of many villages have been acquired for the same purpose by the same notification. Village Bigha is situated by the side of village Bhitia. The lands of this village were also acquired for the same purpose. The lands were 3 Fasla lands. One Daso Paswan of village Bigha has filed a case for compensation in which decision has already been given by Land Acquisition Judge vide Exhibit 1. This Exhibit 1 is the decision of the Land Acquisition Judge in L.A. Case No.191 of 1985.
In the said decision, the rate has been fixed at Rs.250 per decimal for Dhanhar land, Rs.200 per decimal for Bhit land and Rs.300 per decimal for Sahan land.
It is well settled principles of law that the decision of court in relation to the land similar in nature is most important evidence and it should be made the basis for the fixation of the rate of land. In the present case, it is admitted fact that for the same purpose, by the same notification, the other land of the same village of Daso Paswan was acquired by the State of Bihar. The witnesses have stated that the land of Daso Paswan is similar in nature. It is the case also that the land of Daso Paswan was agricultural land and the lands of the claimants are also agricultural land. Therefore, there is similarity in the nature of the land. In such circumstances, there is no reason as to why the earlier decision given by the court itself should not be relied upon in the latter decision where the similar fact and evidence are available. Therefore, the learned court below has rightly based his decision on Exhibit 1 produced by the claimants-respondents. Admittedly, there is no contrary evidence produced by the appellants.
In view of my above discussion, I find no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Land Acquisition Judge. Accordingly, the findings of the Land Acquisition Judge are hereby confirmed. In the result, this First Appeal is dismissed.