HARI SHANKAR PRASAD, J. - (1.) THIS appeal at, the instance of the appellants is directed against the judgment dated 15.7.1995 and the Award dated 4.8.1995 whereby and whereunder the learned Subordinate Judge -1, at Seraikella dismissed the reference made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Subarnarekha Dam Project. Chandil under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, on the ground that valuation of the land in question in respect of Award No. 520 is just and proper.
(2.) PURSUANT to the notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act published in the District Gazette on 1.1.1987, the land measuring 9.77 acres area of plot No. 912 appertaining to Khata No. 164 of village Dayapur was acquired. Valuation of the tank was assessed at Rs. 27,591,72 paise and appellant accepted the amount of award with protest assessed under Sec.11 of the Land Acquisition Act. On protest, the matter was referred under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act and thereafter L.A. Case No. 56 of 1991 was filed. Thereafter the learned Land Acquisition Judge, after recording evidence of witnesses produced on behalf of the appellant and after examination of witnesses produced on behalf of the State, came to a finding that the amount of compensation as assessed under Sec.11 of the Land Acquisition Act has been properly made and no enhancement is required and thus, dismissed the suit. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the tank spread over an area measuring 9,77 acres, has been acquired and the tank always remains submerged with water. It is also submitted that fish is reared from the tank to the tune of Rs. GO -70,000.00 per year. He further submits that crops and vegetables are grown in the nearby field by using water of the tank and thus. the annual income from the production of crops and vegetable is Rs. 25,OOO/ -. Learned counsel further pointed out that annual income from irrigation and fishing should not have been assessed less than nine lakh. On the other hand. learned counsel for the respondent submitted that assessment has properly been made, that is why on reference under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the learned Land Acquisition Judge did not enhance the valuation assessed by the collector and dismissed the reference.
(3.) FIVE witnesses have been examined on behalf of the appellant and evidence of all the five witnesses is more or less the same and they have stated that from the tank which is spread over an area of 9.77 acres of land, nearby lands are irrigated making it more fertile and huge earning is made from growing of crops and vegetables. They have also stated that Rs. 60 -70.OOO/ - per year is earned from the fishing because it is a huge tank and round the year, fishes are reared giving earning of Rs. GO -70.000.00 per year besides employment to several other persons.;