Mandal, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated August 24, 2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair in Land Acquisition Case No.04 of 1996.
(2.) THE appellant obtained khas possession of a piece of land measuring .0800 hectare at survey plot No. 165 in School Line area, Port Blair. Initially, he constructed a small cottage thereon for his residential purpose. Subsequently, he constructed a house in the said plot. THEreafter, he also made addition and alteration of his house. His land was classified as a house site in 1996. He received a notice from the Land Acquisition Collector, Port Blair for acquisition of his land along with other surrounding lands for the purpose of extension work of the airfield of Port Blair Airport. THE appellant submitted his written objection. After consideration of all the materials, the Land Acquisition published an award indicating an amount of compensation to the appellant to the tune of Rs. 9,03,299/- for his land. According to him, his land was situated in the commercial area and so the commercial value of the land should be taken into consideration, and at that time the market price of the land was Rs. 3,000/- per sq. mtr. but the award indicates the assessment much below Rs. 3,000/-. Moreover, the valuation of the property was not taken into consideration properly at the time of acquisition. THE valuation of the standing trees on the land in question was not also properly considered and as such a nominal amount of compensation was granted. According to him, the valuation should have been to the tune of Rs. 40,17,549/- and for that reason he prayed for enhancement of the compensation. THE learned District Judge, upon analysis of the evidence on record adduced before him, came to the conclusion that the compensation awarded by the Collector was not at all arbitrary. On the contrary, it was found to be quite reasonable and adequate. Accordingly, he dismissed the said L.A. case. Being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred by the claimant. Mr. K.M.B. Jayapal, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has contended before us that the learned District Judge did not consider the evidence on record adduced by the appellant. Moreover, the report submitted by the engineer appointed by him had been ignored by the learned District Judge. He has contended that the engineer appointed by him is a qualified person. He is a BE(Civil) and has been in the profession for a long period and had surveyed many lands of the locality and the reports submitted by him in respect of other lands had been accepted by the Collector, but the report submitted by him in respect of land in question was not accepted by the Collector. THE said engineer has been examined as the PW-2. Learned Counsel has also pointed out that PW-2, having requisite qualifications and experience, is a competent person to assess the compensation. Moreover, he is a Government contractor and as such, the learned District Judge was not justified al all in rejecting the report submitted by him. Mr. Jayapal has also contended that the appellant had produced as many as 13 registered sale deeds of the same locality and such sale deeds clearly indicate the market price of the surrounding lands or the surrounding villages of the airport and from such sale deeds it will reveal that the compensation, as determined by the Collector, was totally inadequate. The learned District Judge even did not discuss those deeds in his judgment. By one sentence, he has discarded all the 13 deeds and as such the impugned judgment cannot be supported.
(3.) MR. Jayapal, learned Counsel, thus, submitted that the assessment of compensation as done by the learned District Judge cannot be supported and the award in respect of land in question should be enhanced to the tune of Rs. 40,17,549/-, as claimed by the appellant, upon taking into consideration the materials placed by the appellant before the learned District Judge and the judgment under appeal should be accordingly set aside. On the other hand, MR. Mohd. Tabraiz, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, contended that the land in question cannot be considered as a commercial plot at all since there was no evidence in that regard. As per record of the Collector, the land has been described as a house site and in fact the appellant has a house thereon. Though the land is situated just beside the Andaman Trunk Road, there is no material-on-record to show that the said plot is a commercial one, and as such, the land in question had been rightly considered as a house site and valuation had been assessed accordingly. MR. Tabraiz has also contended that evidence of the appellant as well as of the PW-2, an engineer appointed by him, cannot be considered at all. The PW-2 had considered the valuation of the house in a general form without any specification and without any mention as to the quality of the materials (such as, branded materials or not), used by the appellant for the purpose of construction, electrical fittings, asbestos sheets, thickness of the tin sheet. He also contended that the report does not indicate whether the trees standing on the land in question are fruit bearing ones or ordinary trees, as are found in the locality. The valuation of the trees had been taken into consideration in the award and the assessment was done accordingly. Thus, the award had been rightly passed.;