D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) BOTH these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment since they arise out of the same impugned order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
(2.) FACTS of the case in brief are that by notification dated 1.2.1982 published under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the State Government sought to acquire 14.81 acres of land situated at Jhumaritelaiya belonging to several recorded tenants, for the purposes of construction of buildings of the Krishi Bazar Samittee. The appellant in FA. No. 37 of 1997 namely Mohata Concerns Limited had owned and possessed Cres of land out of aforesaid total area on which a bungalow and outhouses were constructed. The land was purchased by the appellant for the purposes of establishing its own factory and business. The appellant filed its objection under Sec. 5 of the Act, praying for release of the lands and in the alternative, to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 30,000.00 per kattha of the land. In the subsequent amendment in the reference proceeding, the rate claimed was recalculated and mentioned at Rs. 73,150.00 per kattha. However, the lands were not released from acquisition and notification was published on 21.10.1982 under Sec. 6 of the Act declaring that the appellant's land along with lands of several raiyats are to be acquired by the Government for public purposes. Though, objection of the appellant was received but no compensation was fixed or declared by the competent authority within a reasonable time. However, the Collector had assessed the compensation at Rs. 1,95,021.00 for the entire lands of the appellant. The amount so assessed was seriously challenged by the appellant as being unreasonable, meager and not in proportion to the market value of the land. The appellant sought therefore to refer the dispute to the District Judge for adjudication. The application for reference was not forwarded promptly by the Collector to the competent court and this had led the appellant to undertake series of litigations by way of filing writ applications before the High Court and pursuant to the orders passed in the last such writ application, the dispute was referred by the Collector to the District Judge, Koderma under Sec. 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and on receiving the same, the case was registered as Reference Case No. 779 of 1992. In the proceeding before the Reference Court, the Secretary, Bihar State Agricultural Market Board (appellant in F.A. No. 65 of 1997) had intervened and was made a party respondent. Both the parties had adduced their respective evidences both oral and documentary and on the basis of the evidences so adduced, the Reference Court by its judgment dated 25.4.19nd corresponding Award dated 3.5.1997, enhanced the compensation payable to the appellant to Rs. 4,96,250.00 at the rate of Rs. 5,000.00 per kattha for the entire lands and in addition, awarded solatium at the rate of 30% of the value from the date of notification dated 1.2.1982 and interest at the rate of 12% for the first year from the date of the notification and at the rate of 15% for the subsequent years till final payment of the total compensation amount. 3 Being aggrieved by the amount of compensation as awarded by the Reference Court, the appellant Mohata Concerns Limited has preferred the instant appeal (F.A. No. 37 of 1997) for enhancement of the amount of compensation. A cross appeal has been filed against the same impugned judgment of the Reference Court by the Secretary, Bihar State Agricultural Market Board, Koderma which has been registered as F.A. No. 65 of 1997.
(3.) THE appellant Mohata Concerns Limited has assailed the impugned Award of the Reference court on the ground that the amount of compensation as awarded by the Reference Court was without proper basis, arbitrary and without taking into consideration the actual market value of the acquired lands by reference to the rates fetched by the adjoining lands at or about the date of notification under Sec. 4 of the Act. Learned Counsel for the appellant Mohata Concerns Limited, while referring to the evidences adduced in the proceeding, submits that besides the oral evidence of the witnesses, the appellant had also adduced documentary evidence including two sale deeds (Ext. -2 and 2/A) pertaining to the sale of the lands adjacent to the land under reference in this case and both the sale deeds were executed five months prior to the date of the notification under Sec. 4 of the Act and the lands were purchased at Rs. 20,000.00 per kattha. Furthermore, the witnesses not only of the appellant, but also of the respondents had acknowledged that the acquired lands were situated on up -lands by the side of national highway and within close proximity of the railway station, market, official and private buildings and within the municipal area with amenities of electricity and water. The Reference Judge though had found the potential value of the acquired lands as being much higher than what was assessed by the Collector on account of the location and situation of the lands within the municipal area and of its being in close proximity of other developed lands, but fixed the rate at Rs. 5,000.00 per kattha without any basis whatsoever and without appreciating the evidence in proper perspective. Learned Counsel submits further that on considering the existing market value of the land and its future potential, the Reference Judge ought to have awarded compensation at the rate of the market value, as indicated in the sale deeds (Ext. -2 and 2/A). Furthermore, the Reference Court ought to have also considered the fact that the appellant was put to an unjustified harassment of protracted delay and the repeated litigation which the appellant was constrained to undertake during the period of more than 12 years from the date of notification in getting its dispute referred to the Reference Court and as such, the Reference Judge ought to have awarded cost in favour of the appellant at least at the rate of 15% of the market value of the land.;