COLLECTOR Vs. MAHABIR PRASAD SANTUKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals arise out of the judgment of the Subordinate judge, Cuttack in Land Acquisition Case No. 19 of 1970. By declaration dated 23-12-1966 published in the Orissa Gazette on 2-2-1967, 12 acres of land appertaining to plot no. 117 of mouza Jajbhairaba were acquired by Government for the purpose of construction of Aviation Research Centre at Charbatia. The Land Acquisition collector valued the land at Rs. 2,000 per acre and has awarded the compensation jointly to Mahabir Prasad Santuka, Mahabir Prasad Modi, Kamali Debi and Bhati bai, petitioners 1 to 4 in the Land Acquisition Case. Plot No. 177 has a total area of 167 acres. Exhibit B is the field verification map got prepared by the Land acquisition Collector in respect of that plot. Various persons had acquired different portions of Plot No. 177. Exhibit B shows sub-division of Plot No. 177 into different parcels and each sub-division has been allotted a separate number. There is no dispute in this case that the 12 acres of land acquired in this case cover sub-plot nos. 16, 17, 16a and 17a of plot No. 177. So far as sub-plot Nos. 16 and 17, each measuring 5 acres are concerned, there is dispute regarding title. While petitioners 1 and 2 Mahabir Prasad Santuka and Mahabir Prasad Modi claim title to these two sub-plots and their claim thereto is accepted by the Land acquisition Collector, petitioners 5 aud 6 Banwarilal Bathual and his wife Sabitri debi respectively contend that they are the owners of these two sub-plots ana that the Land Acquisition Collector was wrong in awarding compensation in respect of these ten acres of land to petitioners 1 and 2. Both these sets of claimants, namely, petitioners 1 to 4 and petitioners 5 and 6 also contended that the valuation of the land as fixed by the Collector is low with the result that petitioners 1 to 4 in whose favour the award was passed did not accept the same and wanted a reference to be made to the Court. Petitioners 5 and 6 also requested the collector to make a reference under Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Accordingly, the Collector made a reference under Sections 18 and 30 of the Act for determining the proper amount of compensation for the land acquired and for the apportionment thereof.

(2.) THERE is no dispute between the parties that Maulana Sayed Mohammed Molliha and three others were the owners of plot No. 177 and that one Fezrul Maque was their power-of-attorney-holder. The case of petitioners 1 to 4 is that one Syed bazrul Rahim took lease of the disputed 12 acres of land, namely, sub-plot Nos. 16, 17, 16a and 17a from the Zamindars in 1944 under an unregistered deed of lease Exhibit 4/1 dated 23-2-1944 from the landlords, and after getting these lands demarcated by planting stone pillars all round the same, remained in possession thereof. Their further case is that in the year 1965, Bazrul Rahim sold these 12 acres of land under three different registered sale deeds to Anadi Lal, mahabir Prasad Modi and Ganapati Debi as follows: exhibit 5/1 dated 9-2-1956: In favour of Ganapati Debi in respect of 5 acres of land out of plot No. 177 (boundaries not given) for Rs. 500. Exhibit 5/a/1 dated 9-2-1956: In favour of Mahadeb Prasad Modi (petitioner No. 2) in respect of 5 acres of land out of plot No. 177. (boundaries not given) for Rs. 500: exhibit 5/b-1 dated 9-2-56: In favour of Anadi Lal in respect of 2 acres of land out of plot No. 177 (boundaries not given) for Rs. 200. Ganapati Debi is dead and petitioner No. 1 Mahabir Prasad Santuka is her son. In a family partition, between Anadi Lal and his two sisters-in-law, Kamali Debi and bhati Bai (petitioners 3 and 4), the two acres of land purchased by Anadi Lal under Exhibit 5/b-1 had fallen to the share of petitioners 3 and 4. This is how the petitioners 1 to 4 claim the entire compensation in respect of the 12 acres of land acquired in this case.

(3.) PETITIONER No. 1, petitioner No. 2 and petitioners 3 and 4 jointly filed three separate applications under Section 18 of the Act requesting the Collector to make a reference to the Court for determining the proper amount of compensation and in each of these applications it was claimed that the value of the disputed lands on the date of acquisition was Rs, 1,500 per gunth, that is, Rs. 37,500 per acre.