RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD JAIPUR Vs. RAGHUVIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act ") arise out of the same award dated 28.7.1992 made by the Civil Judge and Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the "Reference Court ")in Reference Case No. 17 of 1983, by which the Reference Court had allowed the reference made under section 18 of the said Act against the award dated 29-30/6/1983 passed by the Officer on Special Duty, Urban Development and Housing Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur in case No. 1 of 1982.

(2.) AT the outset, it may be mentioned that the learned counsel Dr. P.C. Jain appearing for the Rajasthan Housing Board in S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1020 of 1996 has submitted that in view of the cognate civil Misc. appeal preferred by the State of Rajasthan, he does not press for the appeal filed by the Housing Board. Accordingly, the Civil Misc.Appeal No.1020 of 1996 preferred by Rajasthan Housing Board is dismissed as not pressed for.

(3.) IT cannot be gainsaid that while determining the market value of the acquired land, the sale instances of the lands situated at the nearby area and of the nearby period of acquisition are considered to be the relevant and reliable evidence. Of course, the comparative details of the lands acquired and of the lands pertaining to the sale instances would also be a material evidence which the claimant is required to adduce for claiming enhancement in the compensation. From the record, it appears that the respondent-claimant had relied upon the award passed in respect of the land of village Bambala which was 15 Km away from the acquired land and for which the compensation at the rate of Rs.45,000/- per bigha was awarded in the year 1983. The claimant had also relied upon the award in respect of the land situated at village Gajsinghpura which was 12 Km away from the land acquired and in which compensation at the rate of Rs. 49,000/- per bigha was awarded. The respondent-claimant had also relied upon the sale deeds of the lands situated at village Keshavpura, which were about 13 Km away from the lands acquired and also relied upon one agreement to sell of the land of village Gopalpura, in which the land was valued at about Rs.30,000/- per bigha. All these documents adduced by the claimant have been considered and relied upon by the Reference Court while enhancing the compensation at the rate of 30,000/- per bigha. IT is true that the Reference Court has not taken into consideration as to whether the lands in question and the lands for which the said instances and awards were relied upon were comparable or not, so far as the nature, size and location of the lands were concerned. Nonetheless, the Reference Court having taking into consideration the market value and the potential value of the lands in question, awarded the minimum price of sale instance of the land which was at the rate of 30,000/- per bigha, this court does not find any gross illegality or perversity in the impugned order which would require the court to take a different view. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to impress the court as to how and to what extent the amount of compensation enhanced by the Reference Court was illegal or perverse.