M.Y. Eqbal, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been placed for hearing after the remand of the appeal by the Supreme Court in terms of judgment passed in Civil Appeal No. 6442 of 2000.
(2.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal was filed against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in First Appeal Nos. 228 and 229 of 1989. Initially the L.P.A was dismissed in limine and against that the appellant moved the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 6442 of 2000 and by judgment dated 7 November, 2008, the Supreme Court directed the Division Bench to hear the appeal on merit. The Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: The land owned by the appellant at village Lohardaga was acquired for the purpose of construction of agricultural market -yard. Notification under 4 was published on 16.2.1978. The collector finally prepared the award in the name of several claimants including the appellant in respect of land in question. The valuation so fixed by the collector was disputed and consequently dispute with regard to valuation was referred to Land Acquisition Judge under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act being Land Acquisition Case No. 498 of 1981. So far as the appellants land is concerned, it was divided by the collector in two category i.e. Category 'Ka' and Category 'Kha' and admittedly the land situates in the Ranchi -Gumla Road. The Land Acquisition Judge determined the market rate of category 'Kha' land @ 48,000/ - per acre and category 'Kha' land @ 24,000/ - per acre vide judgment dated 6 July 1987. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award the appellant preferred First Appeal being F.A. No. 228 of 1989. The learned Single Judge on re appreciation of the evidence came to a finding that the valuation of category 'Ka' land should have been @ Rs. 66,000/ - per acre. However, so far category 'Kha' is concerned, the learned Single Judge held that the valuation determined by the Land Acquisition Judge needs no interference.
(3.) IT is worth to mention here that in the appeal preferred before the Supreme Court the appellant challenged only that part of the judgment whereby the valuation of category 'Kha' land was not enhanced proportionately.;