Dhrub Narayan Upadhyay, J. - (1.) THESE appeals have been preferred against common judgment dated 11.12.1987 and awards signed on 17 -12 -1987 whereby hatch of L.A. Ref. Cases No. 145 of 1986 to 177 of 1986 have been disposed of and the Learned Special Judge (Land Acquisition) Dhanbad, has enhanced the compensation amount against the acquired land @ Rs. 20,000/ - per decimal for Gora I land or Tanr I land and Rs. 12,000/ - for Dhan III lands and for the rest of the land Dhanbad ratio will follow. Facts of the case, in brief, giving rise to these appeals are as under:
(2.) IT is an admitted and undisputed fact that the lands of the respondents were acquired in terms of the notification No. 3139 Dly/Bok/13/75 dated 15.7.1975 issued under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, and its valuation was decided on the basis of the rates indicated in the rate report. It is submitted that the awardees had not adduced consistent evidence with regard to the valuation of the land acquired. They have not produced valid documents for coming to conclusion that the land acquired was valued @ Rs. 20,000/ - per acre for Dhan I land and Rs. 12,000/ - for Dhanbad II land. The sale deeds (Ext 2 and 2A) do not indicate the nature of the land acquired under the notification; rather, those lands are related to Ghar angan and Vastu vari. The learned Special Judge has committed gross errors because he should not have considered the rates indicated for vastu bari land to be that of Dhan I land. No cogent reason has been assigned by the learned Special Judge, Land Acquisition, against enhancement of the amount of compensation payable on account of the acquisition of the land. The rate chart submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer ought to have been accepted by the learned Special Judge, Land Acquisition. The enhancement against compensation amount of the land acquired is arbitrary and without valid reasons and, therefore, liable to be set aside.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the arguments and submitted that the awardees had adduced their evidences, both oral and documentary, on the basis of which the Learned Special Judge, Land Acquisition, has enhanced the compensation amount of the land acquired. There is no lacuna, or irregularity or illegality in the judgment impugned passed in these appeals and it is liable to be upheld. 4A. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgment against which these appeals have been preferred. From perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that lands of the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bokaro Steel Project vide Notification No. 3139 -DLY -Bok -13/75 dated 15.7.1975, declaration No. DLY 230230 dated 22.1.1977. It is contended that the classification of the land made by the Land Acquisition Department is incorrect as the classification of the lands was noted from the old survey settlement record of right. As a matter of fact, their land were first class paddy lands and first class Gora lands, but the Land Acquisition Department without spot verification copied the nature of lands from the survey settlement record of rights. But in course of time, they have reclaimed their land and it was allegedly converted into paddy fields.;