NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) THIS appeal by the State -appellant is against the judgment and award passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad in LA Case No. 33 of 1972 whereby learned Court below has assessed the value of the acquired land of an area of 14.65 acres at the rate of Rs. 6,000/ - per acre with the then statutory solatium and interest, modifying the award of the Collector accordingly.
(2.) THE respondents lands of Village Harila, P.S. Chas, District Dhanbad were acquired by the Government for the purpose of Bokaro Steel City. After acquisition of the lands, the Collector assessed the value and made an award of Rs. 3,213.35 for the said 14.65 acres of land of the respondents. On objection against the said valuation, by the respondents the case was referred to the Land Acquisition Judge under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be referred as the LA Act). The respondent claimed the value of the lands at the rate of Rs. 6,000/ - per acre. The parties, thereafter, adduced evidences. The original claimant -respondent produced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim. He has produced several judgments of the Patna High Court by which the market price was fixed after considering all the evidences for the same stretch of land and for simultaneous or earlier acquisitions. Exhibits 1, 1/a and 1/b are the copies of judgments by which price of such land was determined at the rate of Rs. 6,000/ - per acre. Those cases were regarding the similar land of the same village and were of the period earlier to the acquisition of the respondents lands in this case. The said judgments were of the year 1979 in respect of the land which were also acquired for the purpose of Bokaro Steel Project. The claimant also examined himself as AW 1 and supported his claim and proved that the lands were suitable for constructing houses and the same were similar to other tanr lands which were acquired previously for the same project and the High Court determined the value at the rate of Rs. 6,000/ - per acre after considering the other evidences on record. On behalf of the State -opposite party, a solitary witness was examined as OPW 1. The said witness has contradicted the claim made by the respondents. The learned Land Acquisition Judge, after considering the judgments on record, came to the findings that in earlier judgments of the High Court (Exhibit 1, 1/a and 1/b), the value of tanr lands similar to the land in question was assessed at the rate of Rs. 6,000/ - per acre and therefore, no value less than that can be assessed for the tanr land of village Harila. Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned SC (LC) appearing on behalf of the State -appellant submitted that the judgment and award of the learned Land Acquisition Judge is not supported by sufficient evidence on record and the same is perverse. Learned counsel submitted that the award of the Court below is mainly based on three earlier judgments of the High Court in similar cases in which the valuation of different classes of land of the same village has been determined. Learned counsel submitted that though the said judgments which relate to the same village and regarding the same project are of relevant consideration, yet the learned Court below has failed to take into consideration that in two of the judgments, i.e., Exhibit 1 and 1/a the compensation for tanr land was awarded at the rate of Rs. 3,000/ - per acre. The Court below should have relied on the said two judgments instead of another single judgments Ext. 1/b and should not have determined the value on the said basis at the maximum rate of Rs. 6,000/ -per acre.
(3.) MR . Rajgarhia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand controverted the grounds taken by the appellant and submitted that in all the said judgments the rate of similar tanr land of the same village were fixed at the rate of Rs. 6,000/ - per acre, but since in the said two cases, the claimants themselves had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,000/ -, the High Court had allowed the enhancement in the compensation amount only to the extent claimed by the applicants/appellants in the said cases. Learned counsel submitted that the said rates at Rs. 6,000/ - per acre was fixed by the High Court for the acquisition of the lands prior to the instant acquisition and as a matter of fact, the respondents were entitled to get more in view of the enhancement in the value of the land in the subsequent years. However, in order to avoid further contest, the claimants -respondents claimed only the said rate of compensation. It has been, thus, submitted by the learned counsel that there is absolutely no infirmity and illegality in the said judgment and award and there is no merit in this appeal.;