Dhrub Narayan Upadhyay, J. - (1.) BY Court: This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 7.6.2005 passed by Special Judge, Land Acquisition, Dhanbad in L.A. Reference Case No. 73 of 1986, whereby the reference made to the court stood dismissed and the compensation amount assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer against the land acquired has been affirmed. It appears from the record that an area measuring 6.81 acres of land under Mouza Bhupatidih and Tilatanr, P.S. Katras, District Dhanbad was acquired on the requisition of Electricity Board and acquisition was made vide Declaration No. 3206 dated 16.7.1975 was duly published at Page -23 -24 Part -II of Zila Gazette dated 1.8.1975. After due inquiry made by the Land Acquisition Department u/s. 11 of the L.A. Act, Award was prepared being Award No. 19 for Rs. 1514.89 only in the name of appellant company. It is also indicated that out of Bhupatidih, P.S. Katras only 30 decimal of Baid land have been acquired and out of Mouza Tilatanr P.S. Katras 6.5 acres of land have been acquired. The applicant's 31 decimals of Biad land was acquired out of Mouza Bhupatidih recorded under C.S. Khata No. 2, C.S. Plot No. 106(A); I.A. Plot No. 24 and accordingly Award No. 19 for Rs. 1514.89 in the name of Rudra Pd. Lodha, Ashok and company was prepared. It is contended that the learned Special Judge, L.A. has failed to consider the evidence adduced by the appellants. The potentiality of the land and the construction made thereon have not been considered. The appellants had examined four witnesses including themselves and they have stated that value of land, in the vicinity of the land in question, is approximately Rs. 3,000/ - per decimal and therefore, appellants have calculated the value of land to the extent of Rs. 93,000/ - and value of construction made thereon to Rs. 50,392/ - total Rs. 1,43,392/ -. AW 3 and AW 4 have clearly stated that after purchasing the land they had erected boundary wall and constructed staff quarters within the premises. The learned Special judge, L.A. has disbelieved the said fact for want of documents such as purchase of bricks, cement, etc. The oral evidence of AW 1 to AW 4 with regard to valuation of land has been discarded on the ground that evidence of AW 1 and AW 2 is not consistent with the evidence of AW 3 and AW 4. Potentiality of land was also not considered. In view of the submissions made, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellants may be directed to be paid compensation as prayed by them.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that no documentary evidence with regard to valuation of land prevailing in the area has been brought on record. The value of land prevailing within the area cannot be assessed only on the basis of oral evidence and that too on the deposition of two advocates' clerks and the claimants themselves. The learned Special Judge has considered the potentiality of the land and observed that the appellants had purchased the land for starting industry but even after 10 years it was not done and the land was lying vacant. There is no merit in this appeal and therefore the same is liable to be dismissed. I have gone through the impugned judgment, lower court record and the documents placed before me. Admittedly the appellants had failed to adduce documentary evidence with regard to value of land prevailing within the area at the relevant point of time. The constructions and the boundary wall alleged to have been constructed by the appellants stood unsupported by any documents. The appellants have failed to bring on record any permission from the authority concerned for construction of boundary wall or staff quarters on the land in question. No chit of paper was produced to show that boundary wall was erected and quarters were constructed on the land in question. The learned Special Judge has elaborately discussed the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants before concluding the finding. It is apparent that 25 Katthas of land was purchased by the appellants' in the year 1966 for Rs. 2,000/ - that indicates in the year, 1966, the value of land was Rs. 50/ - per decimal. The aforesaid land was acquired in the year 1976 and the compensation of Rs. 1514.89 against 31 decimals of land was given to the appellants.
(3.) IN course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that no solatium or interest on the compensation amount as required u/s. 23(2) was awarded by the learned Special Judge, LA. I have gone through Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, which reads as follows: - 23(2) In addition to the market -value of the land as above provided the court shall in every case award a sum of thirty per centum on such market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. In the case at hand, reference made to the Special Judge, L.A. stood dismissed and the Court has not given any additional amount of compensation besides the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Section 23(2) deals with solatium which is to be paid on the additional amount of compensation but it was not decided in favour of the appellants in the case at hand. In the commentary in this regard case reference of Patel Joitaram Kalidas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, : 2007 (2) PLJR (SC) 7 has been given. The finding of the Hon'ble Apex Court in brief is that the solatium or interest is consequential and it is to be paid on the additional amount of compensation if the reference is allowed and the Court grants additional compensation. It is needless to say that the reference made to tire Special Judge, L.A. stood dismissed and therefore grant of additional amount or solatium or interest does not arise. In the result the appeal stands dismissed and the impugned judgment dated 7.6.2005 passed by Special Judge, Land Acquisition, Dhanbad in L.A. Reference Case No. 73 of 1986 is upheld. The appellants shall be at liberty to withdraw the compensation amount if they have not withdrawn the same till the date.;