(1.) This appeal has been preferred, against the Judgment dated 13.05.2005, passed by learned Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge of L.R. Cases, Hazaribagh in connection with L.R. Case No. 20/1990 whereby the learned Special Judge has enhanced value of the land acquired and decided that the appellant is entitled to receive compensation @ Rs. 10,000/- per decimal besides interest of 12% from the date of Notification or Section 4(1) to the date of Award or taking possession whichever is earlier and solatium of 30% on market price of land besides other statutory benefits, as indicated in the impugned Judgment. It appears that 2.24 Acres of land for constructing a bridge at Ramgarh connecting Ranchi -Patna road was acquired for National Highway and for that Notification under Section 4 was issued and lastly published on 07.04.1988. In the acquisition process, area measuring 1.14 Acres of land belonging to Kalu Ram Chaudhary was acquired and accordingly compensation assessed to the extent of 1,56,180/- besides solatium, 12%, interest etc. The details of land of Kalu Ram Chaudhary is described in Form -18 and also in the reference petition which is as under:--
(2.) On the other hand, the Government pleader also appeared and adduced evidence. At the adjudication, the learned Special Judge has enhanced value of the land to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- per Decimal and also directed to give statutory benefits like solatium, interest etc. Mostt. Dhapa, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment, preferred this Appeal before this Hon'ble Court for further enhancement of compensation amount. However, during pendency of this appeal, Mostt. Dhapa also died and her legal heirs have been substituted.
(3.) It is submitted that the learned Special Judge has wrongly considered the documents and evidence on record. It is not disputed that the land belonging to the appellant was situated at the National Highway and for construction of Bridge over Damodar River, the land was acquired. The appellants have also adduced evidence and filed documents which were indicating value of the land prevailing in the adjacent area and it was about Rs. 20,000/- per decimal. The learned Special Judge has also not considered potentiality of the land which was situated just 500 yards from Subhash Chowk, which is busiest place of the town of Ramgarh. It is pointed out that Subhash Chowk is situated in the heart of the town. The learned Special Judge has further erred by reducing value of the land on the ground that it was a low land. Since evidence and documents available on the record were not properly considered, impugned Judgment is liable to be set aside and the amount of compensation may be enhanced.