VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the State of Bihar against the order dated 29.5.1990 passed by the Sub -Judge, Garhwa under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), whereby and whereunder, for 92 decimals of acquired land of the respondent for Danro Jalashai Yojna Panghtwa, was valued at Rs. 12.000.00 two mahua trees were valued at Rs. 1000.00 . besides additional compensation a 30% with interest @ 9% from the date of acquisition was directed to be paid to the respondent.
(2.) THE State has pleaded that the land acquired was Tanr land, but the Court ignored this fact and taking into consideration the price of the piece of a small acquisition of 11 decimals of land. (Ext. 1), the Court fixed the valuation. Moreover, the Exts. 1 and 2 were the sale deeds of the year 1992. much subsequent to the date of acquisition and therefore, they should not have been taken into consideration, besides it was wrong on the part of the Court to. hold that no survey khatian had been filed by the respondent. With regard to the mahua trees, it was stated by the appellant that their existence is not supported by . evidence on record. The respondent has also filed a cross -objection claiming that the valuation as fixed by the Court below @ Rs. 12.000.00 per acre and that of the mahua trees Rs. 1000.00 is against the weight of the evidence and the rate should have been Rs. 180/" per decimal and Rs. 3000.00 for each of the mahua trees. Undisputedly, the notification under Sec. 4 of the Act, has been issued sometimes in the year 1980. Neither of the parties has given the exact date. On perusal of the lower Court records, it transpires that the award was prepared by the Collector as per the declaration No. 441, dated 27.8.1981, 92 decimals of land of the respondent, Deo Sharan Prasad. was acquired. On perusal of Collector 'saward, it is found that the plot number, khata number are given in it but the nature of the land is not mentioned. It shows that the land was in the village Dandai and the award given by the Collector was for Rs. 2930.00 for the land, for trees Rs. 148.00. additional compensation Rs. 923.61. additional compensation as per new amendment under new Act @ 44% amounting to Rs. 1354.00 and it was made after local inspection. It also shows that in respect of the trees, Rs. 148.50 was awarded. Thus, it also shows that there were trees on the land acquired. the copy of the khatain of the village concerned is also on record, which shows that it is Tarn II land. No oral evidence was adduced by the appellant before the Court below.
(3.) THE case of the respondent before the Land Acquisition Officials was that the land was three crop bearing land yielding paddy, wheat, vegetables etc., besides near the land there was a well, which was used to irrigate the land, which used to yield 50 -55 Maunds of paddy, 30 -40 Maunds of wheat and 60 Maunds of potato, besides 2 mahua trees thereon was yielding 3 Maunds of mahua and consequently, after acquisition of the land the respondent has suffered a great loss. His further case was that the Government officials and the Land Acquisition Officers were displeased with him; therefore, instead of valuing that land at Dhan II land rate, they have valued it on the basis of class Tarn II land and they have also not given valuation of mahua trees. The produce were sulcl in the market, Therefore, he claimed Rs. 18.000.00 as the valuation of the land and Rs. 6,000.00 for mahua trees totaling Rs. 24,000.00 as against Rs. 5366.94 awarded to him. In support of its case, as stated, no evidence was adduced by the Stale but from the side of the respondent, three witnesses were examined and sale deeds were also exhibited. CW 1 is the witness of the same village. He has stated that the land in question was yielding three crops in a year and the respondent had got income from that. He was examined in the year 1987 and said that about 7 -8 years back. the land in the village used to be sold @ 18.000.00 20.000.00 per acre. He also said that he has his land in that very village. His evidence practically on yield and the approximate rate of land was ex parte, as no cross -examination was made on those points by the appellant. CW 2, Ram Das Bishwakarma, is also a man of that very village. He supported the ease of the claimant that the land nearby the acquired land was sold @ Rs. 1000.00 2000.00 per khata. Me also said that about 10 years back in the year 1989 the same land in the village used to be sold at Rs. 18.000 -2000.00 per acre. He said that the claimant got income from the mahua trees standing thereon. In his cross -examination, he said that in the year 1982, 1.5 decimal of land was sold for Rs. 2500.00 and he had purchased in the year 1972 18 decimal of land for Rs. 1100.00 . Thus, in the year 1972 about 9 years prior to the acquisition. for Rs. 1100.00 18 decimal of land was sold, meaning thereby one decimal of land was sold @ about Rs. 60.00 per decimal and in the year 1982, 1.5 decimal of land was sold at Rs. 1650.00 which means Rs. 16500.00 per acre but no document is there in support of this statement. Then CW 3 is the another witness of the same village who also corroborated the claim of the respondent that the land used to yield three crops and the land is a dhankhet and in the year 1981 the land used to be sold at Rs. 800.00 per khatta and on this land there were two mahua trees having valuation of Rs. 6000.00 . In his cross -examination, he says that the sale about which he spoke in his examination -in -chief was in his presence as he said that 9 decimal of land was sold at Rs. 1800.00 . In his cross - examination, he further stated that near the land there is a pond which was used for irrigation.;