R.S.CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) Having acquired the hearth and home, the land and the farm of the non-petitioner, the petitioner Corporation has filed this review petition against the judgment dated 25.4.2005 whereby this Court had enhanced the compensation payable to the non-petitioner from Rs. 10,000/- per bigha to Rs. 22,000/- per bigha.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that in order to establish a Unit of National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (NTPC) (henceforth to be referred to as the petitioner Corporation', for short), at Anta in District Baran, the State Government had expressed its intention of acquiring the land of the farmers vide notification dated 2.3.1989. According to the said notification published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,1984 (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Act', for short), the non-petitioner's land situated in Khasra No. 265 and Khasra No. 266 comprising of eight bigha ten biswa were subject of acquisition. Eventually, vide award dated 9.10.1990, the non-petitioner was granted a compensation of Rs. 1,28,298/-. According to the Land Acquisition Officer since the non-petitioner's land was shown in the revenue record as being unirregated, he was entitled to a compensation of only Rs. 10,000/- per bigha. Since the non- petitioner was not satisfied with the amount of compensation, he had filed an application under Section 18 of the Act for reference to a Civil Court. Before the Civil Court, the non-petitioner claimed that he is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,87,000/- @ Rs. 22,000/- per bigha. Before the Civil Court, the Land Acquisition Officer had filed the reply and had justified the award ostensibly on the ground that the non-petitioner's land was shown as unirrigated land in the revenue record. According to the Land Acquisition Officer, those whose land was shown as irrigated, were granted the compensation @ Rs. 22,000/- per bigha. Since the non-petitioner's land was unirrigated, he was awarded compensation @ Rs. 10,000/- per bigha. Vide order dated 3.8.1999, the Civil Judge dismissed the reference filed by the non-petitioner. Consequently, the non-petitioner filed an appeal before this Court. The said appeal was decided by this Court vide 1Q judgment dated 25.4.2005. According to the learned Judge, in the reference the non-petitioner had examined himself as a witness and two other witnesses via., Khwajoo Khan (AW-2) and Mangi Lal (AW-3), but the respondent did not produce any oral or documentary evidence. The learned Judge further held that the nature of the land, whether it is irrigated or unirrigated cannot be decided only on the basis of revenue record. Although the non-petitioner's land was shown as unirrigated in the revenue record, according to the testimonies of the independent witnesses, even prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act, the non-petitioner had dug a well on his land. In fact, he was irrigating his field by utilising the water from the said well. Hence, in reality the land was, indeed, irrigated. Considering the fact that other irrigated land in the vicinity of the non- petitioner's land were compensated @ Rs. 22,000/- per bigha, the learned Judge allowed the appeal and declared that the non-petitioner shall be entitled for compensation @1) Rs. 22,000/- per bigha.
(3.) The petitioner Corporation has filed the review petition ostensibly on the ground that the non-petitioner had intentionally shown his land as unirrigated in order to avoid the payment of land revenue. He could not be permitted to take advantage of his illegal act. Therefore, his land should be treated as "unirrigated land" by the Court. And the Court should have upheld the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. In order to support their contention, the petitioner has relied upon the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswau v. Vipin Kumar and Anr., 2004 AIR SCW 533.;