AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.—The present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the State against the Judgment and Award dated 30th September, 2004 on the ground that the compensation awarded to the claimants by the reference Court is unduly excessive.
It is not necessary for us to notice the facts giving rise to the present appeal in detail. Suffice it to note that vide Notification dated 15.3.1991, land admeasuring 5,525 sq. metres from Survey No. 227/1 of Verna Village was acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 40/-per sq. metre and the reference Court granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 266/-per sq. metre, which is challenged before this Court. Suffice it notice that the findings recorded by the reference Court on issue No. 1, read as under :
The claimants have claimed that the market rate of the acquired land was Rs. 300/-per sq. metre as on the date of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act i.e. on 15.3.1991. The copy of the Award is produced at Exhibit AW.1/D wherein in para 7 it is made clear that some of the interested parties raised objections with regard to the proposed acquisition and a petition was filed before the High Court. The Department has furnished revised plan of the said acquisition. Further it is disclosed that the land under acquisition consists of rice land, coconut land, bharad land, nallah, pond, etc. As far as the land belonging to the claimants is concerned that is survey No. 227/1, in which it is shown that an area of 8,500 sq. metres is dry crop and an area of 11,225 sq. metres is shown as garden land as per the survey records produced at Exhibit AW.1/F. The applicants have placed reliance on the Agreement to Sale dated 29th January, 1990 and the Sale Deed dated 4th December, 1990 however the best possible evidence with regard to the market rate is the award passed by this Court in LAC No. 131/1995 dated 15th December, 1999 wherein land out of Survey No. 227/1 belonging to the claimants of Village Verna was acquired under the earlier Notification published u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act bearing No. 22/168/87-RD dated 14.1.1988 has been considered. In the said matter the reference Court had considered the earlier award No. 88/72/L.A./86 dated 9.1.1989 which was the subject-matter of LAC No. 147/1989 and vide Judgment and Award dated 28.6.1991 the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 190/-sq. metre. Further, it shows that the appeal filed against the said award has been decided by this Court on 3.11.1996 and the compensation was reduced from Rs. 190/-per sq. metres to Rs. 125/-per sq. metre. Similarly, the reference Court came to the conclusion that the market rate worked out to Rs. 200/-per sq. metre as on the date of the said notification i.e. on 14.1.1988. It is also an admitted fact that the respondents therein have accepted the said award and the compensation has been paid to the claimants which is clear from the letter dated 24.10.2002 at Exhibit 31. Therefore, reference Court itself has fixed the market rate of the acquired land at Rs. 200/-per s.q metre as on 14.1.1988 which has been accepted by the respondents therein. The said Judgment and Award produced at Exhibit 30 is the best possible evidence for deciding the reference since the acquisition is of the year 1991 i.e. 15.3.1991. The claimants were also held to be entitled for the increase by 10% per annum which works out to Rs. 266/-per sq. metre. Therefore, the issue No. 1 was partly answered in the affirmative by fixing the market rate of the acquired land as on 15.3.1991 at Rs. 266/- per sq. metre.
The learned Counsel appearing for the State fairly stated that the compensation awarded vide Exhibit AW.1/D by the reference Court has already attained finality and has been accepted by the State. The present acquisition is 3 years subsequent to the notification issued in that case u/s 4 which was dated 14.1.1988. The evidence relied upon by the Court is the Judgment and Award which has attained finality and the State has accepted the same. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the same in the present appeal. The same is dismissed. No order as to costs.