- (1.) THIS misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act of 1894') against the decree and award dated 17.12.1999 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Karauli (Rajasthan) (for short v the court below') in Reference No. 33/1997 (titled as Land Acquisition Officer vs. Sumer Chand Jain) awarding compensation of Rs. 7,73,780/- in place of Rs. 75,555/- awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.
(2.) IN brief facts of the case are that the appellant Rajasthan State Electricity Board (for short the Board') required land for establishment of 220 KV Grid Sub-Station and on 19.5.1993 a notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 was issued by the State Government in respect of the land detailed below: JUDGEMENT_1378_RAJLW2_2012Image1.jpg INvoking urgency clause u/S. 17 of the Act the declaration u/S. 6 was made on 15.9.1993 dispensing with the inquiry contemplated under section 5- A of the Act and it was ordered to take possession of the land on the expiry of 15 days from publication of the notice under Section of the Act. By a corrigendum dated January 12, 1994 the State Government inserted the land measuring 0.08 hectare of Khasra No. 1398/1424 and measuring 0.08 hectare of Khasra No. 1398/1425 in the original notification and declaration aforesaid dt. 19.5.1993 and 15.9.1993 respectively. Thereafter, the Collector before taking possession of the land, by his office order dated 23.12.1993 directed the Board to deposit an amount of Rs. 83,37,120/- under Section 17 (3-A) of the Act for payment to the persons interested. The amount provisionally estimated by the Collector was subject to the final award to be passed under Section 11 of the Act. The Board deposited the amount aforesaid with the Collector and was delivered possession of the land measuring 6.44 hectare on 8.4.1994 through the Tehsildar, Hindaun City. Thereafter, the Board revised its scheme and wrote a letter to the State Government to restrict the acquisition to the extent of land measuring 3.64 hectare only. The notices under Section 9(1) of the Act were issued to the persons interested, inviting claims and finally the award was made by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act on 26.10.1995 in respect of the land measuring 3.64 hectares. The Collector awarded compensation for the land measuring 3.64 hectares at the rate of Rs. 1,70,000/- per bigha aggregating to Rs. 35,02,642/-. The amount awarded since exceeded the amount paid provisionally u/S. 17 (3-A) of the Act, the Collector directed for recovery of the amount from the persons paid in excess. The Collector in its award made on 26.10.1995 specified the amount of compensation payable to each of the persons giving details of the amount paid in past under Section 17 (3A) of the Act and the balance to be paid or excess to be recovered from them as the case may be. The amount recoverable against excess payment figured Rs. 48,15,922A in total as would be evident from the schedule to the award and the Board handed over back the possession of the excess land measuring 2.82 hectare under a Memorandum dt. 20.1.1996. Thereafter a reference under Section 18 of the Act was made for determination of the compensation by the Court. The learned court below has framed six issues.
(3.) AFTER recording the statements of the witnesses the learned court below passed the impugned judgment dated 17.12.1999. Against the impugned judgment dated 17.12.1999 the appellant has filed instant misc. appeal before this Court. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned reference court below failed to appreciate the settled legal propositions for determination of market value of the land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act particularly when a large area of land was acquired for public purpose for establishment of Grid Sub Station. The court below ought to have considered that when large extent of land is acquired, no willing purchaser would be prepared to purchase the land on square yards basis and the court below was unnecessarily swayed by the conversion of land from one use to another at the instance of the Khatedar could not change the nature or the value of the land and it would not at all be a consideration for payment of enhanced compensation. The market value could depend on the situation and potentiality of the land and simply because the khatedar on the person interested obtains conversion order in respect of the land it could not change the nature or the potentiality of the land in so far the purchaser is concerned. The learned court below failed to consider that the award mad by the Land acquisition Officer was based on reasons and evidence on record and the same could not be disturbed without finding fault with the same and the court below has not looked into the provisions of Sec. 17(3-A) and 17(3B) of the Act. The reference court has not decided issue Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 after appreciation of the evidences particularly of PW.8 Mahavir Prasad Jain, PW.9 Sumer Chand Jain PW.10 Hukum Chand Goyal, PW.11, Rajendra Kumar, PW.12 Umesh Kumar, PW.17 Brijvallabh Gupta and others and also over looked the cross examination of the aforesaid witnesses and other witnesses. The court below while deciding issue Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 made a general observation as regards potentiality and situation of the land. The valuation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer could not be displaced by any evidence on record. The court below ought to have considered that the witnesses for the claimants in their deposition admitted that the land acquired was never used for commercial or residential purposes and that the land while purchased by them was for agricultural use and remained so thereafter also.;