HARI SHANKAR PRASAD, J. - (1.) BOTH the appeals arise out of the judgment dated 22nd December, 1993 and award dated 19.3.1994 passed in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 1 of 1991 and 5 of 1991 respectively whereby and where under the learned Sub -ordinate Judge -cum -Land Acquisition Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj allowed both the reference cases and enhanced the quantum of compensation.
(2.) IT appears that pursuant to the notification dated 1.3.1990 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act published in the District Gazette, LA Case No. 1 of 1991 was referred to the Land Acquisition Judge under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and by another notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, LA Case No. 5 of 1991 was referred to the Land Acquisition Judge under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of rehabilitation of displaced persons on account of Oranga Submergence Area. After issuance of notification, compensation was assessed and award was prepared. The claimants disputed the valuation of the lands fixed by the Collector and sought reference of dispute under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The case of the claimants in both the cases is that lands coming under acquisition are Dhan -I land and portion there of is first class and second class of Tand land with agricultural produce and valuable piece of land. At the time of acquisition, land was being sold at the rate of Rs. 40,000/ - per acre, but Special Land Acquisition Officer assessed the land at the rate of Rs. 14,737/ - per acre which is too low. It was also claimed that land is developed one and in and around the area of acquired land, there is school and pucca road, etc and, therefore, valuation assessed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is very low. In Case No. 1 of 1991 it was claimed that land of Tand -II was being sold a little before the acquisition at the rate of not less than Rs. 40,000/ - per acre and that of Tanr land, the selling rate was not less than Rs. 26,000/ - per acre and the nature of land as the Nala contained was also Tanr land and the award relating to the same only at the rate of Rs. 4912/ - per acre was highly inadequate which should have been valued at the rate of Rs. 26000/ - per acre. It was also claimed that there was as many as five pucca and kudia houses for various purposes and the total value thereof in no case could be less than Rs. 75,000/ - and award is completely silent with respect to the prices of the houses. The price should have been assessed at the rate of Rs. 40,000/ - per acre and also at the rate of Rs. 26,000/ - per acre and the Land Acquisition Officer has deliberately fixed the price of land measuring 22.35 acres of land at the rate of Rs. 14,737/ - per acre which is much below the prevailing market rate.
(3.) ON behalf of the claimants, three witnesses have been examined including the claimant himself. AW 2 is Doman Thakur. He is an Assistant in the Registry Office, Daltonganj, who is a formal witness. He has proved one sale deed No. 10306. This sale deed has been marked as Ext. 1 This witness has also proved another sale deed No. 3907 dated 4.5.1992. He has also proved one sale deed No. 12945 executed by Amrit Choudhary in favour of Gopal Sao and these sale deeds have been marked as Exts. 2 and 3. From perusal of the sale deed which is marked Ext. 1, it appears that 5 3/4 decimals of land was sold by Jagdish Choudhary at Rs. 40,000/ - on 17.9.1988 and Ext. 2 shows that about 46 decimals of land was sold at Rs. 15000/ - and Ext 3 shows that about 10 decimals of land of village Hishra alias Pokhraha was sold at Rs. 9500/ - and these sale deeds prove that the land at the time of acquisition was being sold at the rate of Rs. 40,000/ - per acre.;