AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J
All these First Appeals arise out of the judgment and award passed by Sub Judge-II cum Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh in L.R. No.52 of 2002, L.R. No.68 of 2002 and L.R. No.89 of 2002 arising out of L.A. Case No.1/1992-93.
The land measuring an area 221.80 acres had been acquired in Village Konara, P.S. Barhi by the State authority for RIADA and the award was made after completing process of land acquisition.
The objector/petitioner raised objections before the concerned Department with regard to rate on which compensation was assessed. It was averred that the area had been commercialized which had been considered while assessment of compensation.
On notice, opposite party no.2 did not appear before the learned Court below and the case was contested by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh who was impleaded as opposite party no.1.
After adjudicating the dispute, the rate of compensation was raised from Rs.1280/- to Rs.1618/- per decimal.
The award has been impugned on the ground that the instant appeal has been preferred by Ranchi Industrial Area Development Authority (RIADA) inter alia on the ground that flat rate of compensation has been awarded without considering the fact that land acquired where of different nature and category. Different categories of land were namely Dhan-I, & II and Tanr-I, II & III, but the compensation has not been fixed considering the nature of land.
Learned counsel on behalf of respondents submits that the learned Court below after discussing the evidence at length, has given correct finding regarding assessment of compensation taking average rate of the land and other evidence on record. It is argued that the compensation that had been originally assessed in the Acquisition case, was also on a flat rate and different rates had not been awarded with respect to the different categories of lands. Practically, since all the plots are located in the same area therefore, it will not be feasible to have separate rates for each of the lands.
The main question for determination before this Court is whether the award under challenge suffers from infirmity in assessment of compensation considering the category and nature of land?
From the judgment of the learned Court below, it is apparent that evidence was laid on behalf of both sides. In the oral evidence led on behalf of objectors/petitioners, it was specifically stated that the land was situated near the G.T. Road and also national highway passing was by its side. The oral evidence that in the area school, university and petrol pumps were situated, was not controverted in the cross-examination. Exhibit C was the rate of sale of land of the area which was of the year 1995. The learned Court below has assigned specific reason for computing that assessment of Rs.1280/- per decimal which was only for Dhan-I type of land. From Exhibit 1, which was sale deed executed in the year 1990 it appears that the rate of land came to Rs.6758.62 per decimal. The average rate has been computed on the basis of documentary evidence adduced on behalf of Deputy Commissioner being Exhibit C. On these materials, this Court does find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and award.
I do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the finding of facts recorded by the learned Court below.
All the three First Appeals, are accordingly, dismissed.