- (1.) Both the appeals filed in the RFA Nos.1364 & 2200 of 1994 have been brought together since they relate to the assessment of compensation through a single notification. RFA No.133 of 2006, is also directed to be taken up on a representation made by the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that RFA No.133 of 2006 also deals with the property in the same village but brought for acquisition through a notification issued on a different date on 10.09.1990. The issue of whether the compensation in the first two cases could also be taken as basis for compensation for the case which is the subject matter in RFA No.133 of 2006, will be considered at the time when the facts are brought out fully.
(2.) RFA Nos.1364 and 2200 of 1994 relate to acquisition of land through a reference brought by the Collector dated 20.08.1991 in respect of acquisition of 91 kanals 11 marlas of land comprised in khasra Nos.723 to 726, 733 to 736, 743, 744, 746 and 747. The notification under Section 4 had been done on 20.04.1988 and Section 6 declaration had been made on 29.09.1988. The Collector had originally assessed the compensation at Rs.15,000/- per acre. On the reference made to the Court, the said amount was increased to Rs.60,000/- per acre, besides interest and solatium provided under the Act. RFA No.1364 of 1994 is at the instance of the landowner while RFA No.2200 of 1994 is at the instance of the State. Cross objections have also been filed in RFA No.1364 of 1994 at the instance of the beneficiaries of the notification.
(3.) In RFA No.1364 of 1994 the landowner seeks for further enhancement of compensation. The landowner was contending that the acquired land abutted the pucca road and was surrounded by industrial and commercial plots on one side and spinning mills and Bharat Heavy Electricals were on the other side. The industrial department itself had been leasing out plots for 90 years @ Rs.300/- per sq. yard for commercial plots and @ Rs.250/- per sq. yard for industrial purpose. The landowner/ claimant in LAC No.53 of 1991 had contended that there was a tubewell in the acquired land and the value had been assessed only at Rs.18,000/- while the market value of the tubewell would have been not less than Rs.60,000/-. The acquisition in relation to the land belonged to the same owner was also inclusive of a passage leading to the land thereby leaving the respective property which was not acquired to be without any passage and put to the necessity of disuse.;