- (1.) LIST of final hearing cases has been revised. Smt. Chitra Lekha Satsangi, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant is present. None appears on behalf of the respondent. This First Appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and order dated 29.04.1988 passed in Land Acquisition Reference No.309 of 1986 (Lallan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & others) by the VIIth Additional District Judge, Varanasi.
(2.) LEARNED Standing Counsel has submitted that notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 07.11.1981 and notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 16.06.1984 and possession of the land in question was taken on 29.03.1985. According to learned Standing Counsel large tract of the land was acquired for renovation of Narayan Pump Canal in district Varanasi. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation of Rs.27,699/ -for an area of 1.26 acre situate in village Mahewa, Pargana Dhoos, Tehsil Chandauli, District Varanasi and Rs.18,168/ -as interest. On the land holders reference under Section 18 of the Act, by the impugned judgment dated 29.04.1988 the compensation has been enhanced and further a sum of Rs.35,300/ -has been awarded along with interest of Rs.18,900/ -and solatium of Rs.25,200/ - with interest @ 9% per annum.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel has submitted that the enhancement of compensation is illegal because the exemplar sale deeds filed by the claimant -respondents were not accepted by the Reference Court and that the circle rate fixed by the District Magistrate on 01.04.1986 for the purpose of stamp duty on instruments of transfer cannot be made a ground for assessing the compensation but he has proceeded to make the circle rate as the basis for assessing the compensation since all the exemplars sale deed had been rejected. According to learned Standing Counsel the compensation of Rs.500/ -per decimal for the acquired land on that basis is illegal. Having considered the submission of Smt. Chitra Lekha Satsangi, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and perused the record, the submission appears to be correct and has substance. The Reference Court has on the one hand held that the circle rate cannot be made the basis for assessing the market value of the land in question for the purpose of payment of compensation but on the other hand he has considered the circle rate fixed on 01.04.1986 by the District Magistrate under Rule 340 of the Stamp Rules and has awarded compensation on that basis. A perusal of the order indicates that there is no other basis made by the Reference Court for enhancing the compensation. The circle rate fixed by the District Magistrate under Rule 340 of the Stamp Rules is a unilateral exercise and the vendor is not bound by the same and therefore it could not be made the basis of valuing the land for the purpose of payment of compensation. The law on this point is settled in the case of Jawajee Naganathan Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer reported in 1994 JT (2) SCC 604 and Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Gasti Rohini reported in 1995 SCC (1) 717.;