HARI SHANKAR PRASAD, J. - (1.) BOTH the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment as common questions of law and facts are involved in that matter.
(2.) BOTH the appeals are directed against the judgment dated 13.1.1994 and award dated 5.2.1994 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 74 (72) of 1989. First Appeal No. 11/94(R) has been filed for payment of compensation with respect to well as the compensation paid for well is very low and the learned Court below committed error in not relying the report of the Commissioner, who assessed the value of the well at Rs. 33,179.38 paise. It is said that the learned Court below should have considered the evidence led by the appellant in the original case, which will show that the appellant proved the cost of the well at Rs. 50,000.00 . On the other hand, the learned Court below itself stated that the construction value of the well is Rs. 33,179.38 paise and the Land Acquisition Officer valued the same at Rs. 8151/ - abruptly without any basis and the Court valued the well at Rs. 14,000.00 , although he ought to have valued the same at least at Rs. 34,000.00 and the learned Court below should have also granted 30% as solatium and @ Rs. 15% for other charges, although in different case the learned Court below paid Rs. 23,151,72 paise for such a well which is smaller than that of the appellant and as such, the learned Court below should have awarded compensation at Rs. 34,000.00 besides interest at the rate of Rs. 24%.
(3.) FIRST Appeal No. 28/94 (R) has been filed against enhancement of the valuation at Rs. 54,000.00 . It is stated that the finding of the learned Court below was not according to the facts and evidence on record and the same is liable to be set aside. It was further pointed out that the learned Court below have gravely erred in valuing the land at Rs. 33,178,38 paise when the applicant -respondent has not brought any evidence on record that value of the compensation fixed by the Collector was arbitrary and insufficient. It is submitted that applicant had successfully proved the case for lower compensation but the learned lower Court has granted higher compensation. It is further submitted that parties will show that the appellant have been able to prove the compensation fixed by the Collector was just and proper and the learned Court below should have taken into consideration the report of the technical staff of the Land Acquisition Department.;