- (1.) I have heard learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri C.K. Rai for the claimant-respondent and perused the record.
(2.) BY this appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award dated 24.05.1993 passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Azamgarh in L.A.R. No. 5 of 1991. The brief facts of the case are that under a notification dated 04.05.1985 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) proceedings were initiated for acquiring land for the purpose of Ghosi Rajbala Canal at Village Azamatgarh, District Azamgarh in which connection plot no.667 measuring 70 links (1000 links =1 acre) of Ramji Das (respondent No.1) and plot nos. 683, 688, 689 and 609 measuring 360 links of Khaderu (since deceased and represented by respondents 2, 3 and 4) was acquired and possession of which was taken on 10.10.1987 and the SLAO made his award on 31.03.1988. A reference, under Section 18 of the Act, was made at the instance of Ramji Das and Khaderu. The acquired land of Ramji Das was taken to be partly of Rabi-2 quality and partly with building potential. The SLAO assessed the market value of Plot No. 667 at the rate of Rs. 1,85,714.29 paise per acre. In the case of Khaderu, the area of 360 links was assessed separately by SLAO in two parts, although both parts were taken to be agriculural. One part of 206 links was taken to be of Rabi-2 quality, with market value assessed at Rs. 1,13, 272.31 paise per acre whereas the balance 154 links was taken to be of Rabi-4 quality, with market value assessed at the rate of Rs. 78,947.37 paise per acre. The claimant-respondent, Ramji Das, in particular, claimed that his land was ideally located on Ghosi-Mau road in the town area of Azamatgarh and had building potential whereas the SLAO had wrongly taken it to be partly agricultural and that the market value was not less than Rs. 2,500/- per kari and there was no justification to make a deduction of 25% from the market value, as the area acquired was not large.
(3.) BEFORE the reference Court from the claimants side, certified copy of the exemplar sale-deeds were produced and Ramji Das and Pheku (son of Khaderu) were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively. The State examined, Tufani Ram, an Amin in the department, as D.W.1. The reference Court framed two issues :- (1) What was the market value of the land of the claimants on the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act? (2) To what additional amount, if any, are the claimants entitled in this reference? ;