- (1.)THIS appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1894") has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the award dated 8/7/2004 passed by the 9th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Land Acquisition Case No. 08/1995 affirming the award and supplementary award dated 12/11/1990 and 20/12/1990 respectively passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Jabalpur in case No. 20/17/a-82/87-88.
(2.)THE brief facts of the case are that claimant/ appellant owned and possessed the land bearing Khasra No. 57 measuring 0. 923 hectare situated at Village Maharajpur, Tahsil and District Jabalpur. The State of Madhya Pradesh through executive Engineer, PWD, National Highway, Jabalpur wanted to acquire this land for construction of Jabalpur Bypass Road, hence issued notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act on 24/3/1989 for acquisition of this land. The claimant/appellant on receiving notice under Section 9 of the Act filed reply along with documents before the Land Acquisition Officer, Jabalpur. The Land Acquisition Officer, Jabalpur passed the award on 12/11/1990 and supplementary award on 20/12/1990 in Case no. 20/17/a-82/87-88. In the award the compensation was determined at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per sq. ft. , but in the supplementary award the compensation was determined at the rate of Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. On that basis this land was diverted. The claimant received compensation under protest and applied under Section 18 of the Act for referring the matter to the district Court, Jabalpur. The matter was so referred. Claimant/ appellant submitted statement of claims stating therein that the land is developed and diverted, therefore compensation be awarded at the rate of Rs. 70/- per sq. ft. The claim was resisted by the non-appellant/respondent on the ground that the land was not developed. It was an agricultural land outside the limits of the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur, therefore compensation cannot be determined on the basis of sq. ft. After enquiry, the court below found that the compensation determined by the land Acquisition Officer was proper, hence claim submitted by the appellant was dismissed. Being aggrieved by this award, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal.
(3.)SHRI A. K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Court bel,ow has not considered the sale deeds ex. P-3 and P-4 in proper perspective. The evidence was adduced that the adjacent land was sold at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. , but the Court has not awarded compensation on that basis. The finding that the land was used for agricultural purposes is without any basis. The finding of the Land Acquisition Officer has been affirmed in mechanical way. The awarded amount is not adequate. It deserves to be enhanced and the award be modified. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that no deduction is required from the awarded amount keeping in view the purpose for which this land was acquired. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Nelson Fernandes Vs. Special Land acquisition Officer, South Goa and others, (2007) 9 SCC 447.