HARI SHANKAR PRASAD, J. - (1.) THIS appeal under Sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, arises out of judgment dated 12.3,93 and award dated 23.3.93 passed by Sub -Judge Ist -cum -Land Acquisition Judge, Seraikella allowing the reference and enhancing the quantum of compensation.
(2.) IT appears that pursuant to the Notification published in the Zila Gazette dated I.I.I 987 under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, lands of the applicant including residential house and other buildings situated in Mauja Dayapur, P.S. Nimdih were acquired for construction of Dam under the Subarnarekha Multi Purpose Project and after issuance of declaration compensation was assessed and award was prepared. The claimant disputed the valuation of the lands including residential buildings etc. fixed by the Collector and sought reference to the dispute under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The case of the applicant is that the lands, which are admittedly the residential houses consist of three blocks, One main block consists of two rooms in the ground floor and one big room is in first floor with uerondcis on both sides of the room and one wooden stair of teak wood is also attached with the room, which is called the Guest Room, fully decorated with paintings. The applicant claims that all the rooms had many doors and windows and the house was constructed recently at a cost of Rs. 2,00 lacks and the present market value of the same will not be less than Rs. 4.00 lacs. Similarly he claimed the market value of the second floor of the building, which has kitchen, one storeroom, bath room and one latrine etc., is about Rs. 2.00 lacs and so far third block is concerned, it has been constructed for cow shed with khapra roof and the same has been constructed at a cost of Rs. 40,OOO/ -, Hence the applicant claims that the valuation of the residential house etc. acquired for construction of dam is much higher than the amount that has been awarded. The claimant adduced evidences both oral and documentary in support of"" the valuation of the lands and against the said valuation no objection and written statement was filed. However, a show cause lias been filed and two witnesses were ex -iimined on behalf of the defendant -State 11 icy are Rabindra Prasad Sinha. Junior Engineer, as AW 1 and Rama Kant Prasad, Ainin of Irrigation Department, as DW 2. The learned Sub -Judge agreed with the case of the application and, therefore, fixed Life valuation of the boundary wall at Rs. 1.00 lac and additional compensation for . building at Rs. 50.000.00 and enhanced the compensation amount of Rs. 2,48,498.01 paise by Rs. 50,000.00 .
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that two DWs were examined on behalf of the appellant -defendant and some materials were brought on record, such as Ext. A. B and B/1 but from perusal of evidence of DWs 1 and 2 and on perusal of Exts, A, B and B/l, it appears llial only such thing has been done, which is not at all concerned with the assessment of valuation of the buildings etc. acquired for the purpose of Dam and those, who had actually measured the land, assessed the valuation and prepared the report, have not been examined in this case and as such, no documentary evidence has been brought on record on behalf of the appellant -defendant to controvert the valuation of the claim made by the claimant. It further appears that Court below after proper appreciation of the evidence appreciated the claim of the applicant and taking into consideration the valuation, fixed the valuation in respect of the buildings etc. and enhanced the compensation. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the findings recorded by the learned Court below with regard to valuation of the land, buildings etc.;