Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd vs Ganga Ram And Others

Birendra Kumar, J

This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Undisputed facts of this case is that the respondent no.2- the Land Acquisition Officer, Chittorgarh, acquired certain land of respondent no.1 Shri Ganga Ram situated in village Ajolia Ka Kheda in the district of Chittorgarh for industrial use of the appellant- Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited (RIICO).

The Land Acquisition Officer decided valuation of the land as Rs.4200/- per Are, which is admitted valuation of un-irrigated land.

The respondent no.1 was not satisfied with the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer in Misc. Case No.1/1992 by order dated 23.3.1995 hence prayed for reference of the matter to the court under Section 18 of the said Act. On reference, case was registered as Reference No.74/2002 and was finally heard and disposed of by the learned District Judge, Pratapgarh by the judgment dated 20.5.2004. The court was of the view that the acquired land was irrigated land yielding two crops in a year, therefore, its value was Rs.6800/- Per Are and accordingly enhanced the award.

It is worth to mention that the award was also made against other heads, which are not controverted herein.

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the court has wrongly disbelieved categorical finding of the Land Acquisition Officer that no acceptable evidence has been brought on the record that the acquired land was irrigated one. The Land Acquisition Officer has disbelieved the rent-receipts of the appellant of irrigation charges for the acquired land for the reason that Khasra/plot number was not mentioned on those receipts.

Learned counsel for the respondent contends that a civil case is proved on the basis of preponderance of probability. The respondent no.1 had produced receipts of irrigation charges to the Government. The receipt was in the name of respondent no.1. Village name is mentioned therein. No contrary evidence was there on the record, therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer committed error in arbitrarily deciding that the acquired land was un-irrigated one.

The respondent no.1 had categorically stated before the Land Acquisition Officer in his objection that the acquired land is irrigated land by canal as well as a well on the said land since last several years. The Irrigation Department was granting receipts of payment of irrigation charges in favour of respondent no.1. It was further stated that the land is bounded from two sides by road, hence, it has more value than assessed by the Authorities. As per Government rate Rs.6,833/- per Are is cost of the irrigated land, therefore, enhanced compensation needs to be awarded.

The Land Acquisition Officer personally inspected the acquired land and found a well on the said land, which was only for the purpose of irrigation of the land besides other uses. The rent receipts produced before the Land Acquisition Officer relates to irrigated land of respondent no.1 in village Ajolia Ka Kheda and no contrary evidence is there on the record, therefore, the lower appellate court has rightly allowed compensation for acquisition of irrigated land.

It is not disputed that valuation of irrigated land was Rs.6,800/- per Are and odd on the date of acquisition. Other findings are not under challenge herein, therefore, this appeal stands dismissed as devoid of any merit.