Katju and R.S.Tripathi, JJ. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Admittedly the land which has been acquired is of 12.89 acres which is equal to 6,23,870 square yards. The exemplar relied upon by the court below being paper No. 90 Ga is of 30 square yards. Hence in view of the judgment dated 25.2.2004 of this Court in First Appeal No. 522 of 1993, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Khushi Ram, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the court below is set aside.
(3.) In Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Sri. S. O. Tumari, AIR 1995 SC 840 (vide para 22), the Supreme Court held that the burden is on the claimant to show that the S.L.A.O. did not award the proper compensation or that the claimant was entitled to higher compensation. In the present case, the claimants (respondents) have not been able to show that the S.L.A.O. did not award the proper compensation. In the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court the award of the Land Acquisition Officer was affirmed. We are also inclined to affirm the award of the S.L.A.O. in the present case as the claimants have not been able to show that they are entitled to higher compensation than what was awarded by the S.L.A.O. In fact we are of the opinion that the S.L.A.O. has awarded excessive compensation but in view of Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act we cannot reduce the said compensation awarded by the S.L.A.O. The award of the S.L.A.O. is hence restored.;