- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The State has challenged the fixation of quantum of compensation, both as granted by the Referring Court and the High Court. The present dispute referred to is with respect to Survey No. 785/1 of an area of 2 acres 54 cents. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 42,350. 00 per acre, equivalent to Rs. 8.75 per square yard. The Referring Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2,42,000. 00 fixing the rate at Rs. 70. 00 per square yard by reducing it by 30% but rounding the figure, at the rate Rs. 50. 00 per square yard. In appeal both by the present appellant and the claimants, the High Court further enhanced the rate to Rs. 3,38,800. 00 fixing the same rate as that by the Referring court, namely, Rs. 70. 00 per square yard but without deducting by 30% as aforesaid. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant with vehemence refers to Exhibit A. 3, which is the foundation for fixing of the rate. According to the appellant the land therein is Survey no. TS 135 which is adjacent to the said Survey no. 785/1. The submission is both the high Court and the Referring Court committed error by fixing the rate relying on Exhibit a, 3. Learned counsel has taken pains to submit that in the present case oral evidence has not been believed, the impugned decision is based only on the said Exhibit, which is another award in an acquisition proceedings initiated later was not given credence. This is in another proceeding acquisition of which is initiated in the year 1983 and 1985. How can subsequent acquisition proceedings initiated several years later would have relevance. How can these be given credence in the present case. Further, we find distinct feature in the present case that the land in question is conceded that it is near three cinema Theatres which is at walking distance and there are other commercial establishments and educational institutions and the area came under the Municipal administration as early as on 25th July, 1975.
(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we feel that Referring Court has considered the matter in detail. We come to the conclusion that the rate including the deduction and finally fixing at the rate of Rs. 50. 00 per square yard seems to be justified. They fell into error by fixing the rate at Rs. 70. 00 per square yard without any deduction, nor any reason is recorded for the same. This Court has said time and again for the deduction from the value towards the development charges. The Referring Court in doing so has arrived at a correct rate and the value of the land when it fixed at the rate of Rs. 50. 00 per square yard. The impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.;