D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) THIS appeal filed by the State through the Special Land Acquisition Officer is directed against the order dated 31.07.1998 and its corresponding award dated 15.09.1998 passed in 24 Land Acquisition Cases commencing from Case No. 3 of 1994 to 26 of 1994 under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by the Special Judge, whereby the court below had enhanced the compensation amount assessed by the Collector payable for the lands of the appellants acquired by the State Government.
(2.) THE case relates to the acquisition of land in different plots, each comprising of different areas, total measuring 19.53 acres under Khata No. 142 situated within Village Tisra Pokhara in 16/5the /2014 district Page 341 of Palamau belonging to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The Notification No. 4 under the Land Acquisition Act was published on 15.12.1992. Almost four years prior to the date of Notification, the possession of the land was taken by the Land Acquisition Officer on 05.09.1998. The Land Acquisition Officer on 13.06.1993 made spot inspection of the lands. It was observed that the entire area acquired, measuring 19.53 acres was a compact block of land though fragments thereof were recorded under different plot numbers and the entire land was found levelled reportedly by the Rehabilitation Department of the Government by the use of Bulldozers in the year 1988. The Land Acquisition Officer classified the entire lands under five different categories, namely, Dhani I, Dhani II lands, Dhani III lands and Tanr II lands and Tanr III lands and Nala. Notices under Sec. 6 of the Act followed by notices under Sec. 9 of the Act was issued. The Land Acquisition Officer obtained rate chart and sale rate report from the local Sub -Registry Office and on the basis of such chart, he fixed the payable compensation for each category of the lands classified by him and recorded his award assessing a total sum of Rs. 25,09785/ - as payable compensation. However, though the entire area of land acquired, was a compact piece of land belonging to one and the same person yet the Land Acquisition Officer had prepared 24 different awards for each of the classified categories on 11.03.1994 i.e. after more than six years of the dispossession of the claimant. The claimant filed his objection stating that the amount of compensation awarded was too low and not commensurate with the market value of the acquired lands and had sought reference of his case to the District Judge for adjudication. On receipt of the objection, the Land Acquisition Officer referred the case for adjudication to the District Judge, which was eventually received in the court of the Special Judge, Land Acquisition. In course of the proceedings before the Special Judge, both parties had adduced their respective evidences in support of their claims of the market value of the land. The Land Acquisition Judge after hearing the parties and considering the evidences on record, enhanced the market value of the lands to Rs. 37,087/ - per acre taking into consideration the rate fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer for the Dhani III lands. The Respondents had earlier received the amount of compensation of Rs. 25, 38, 519.20 Paise under protest which was the amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer but the amount of interest accrued thereon was not paid to them nor the amount of solitium. The further amount calculated at the enhanced rate was made payable to the claimant by the order passed by the learned court below. Aggrieved at the enhancement of the amount of compensation made by the learned Special judge, the instant Appeal has been tiled on behalf of the State Government. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Respondents.
(3.) THE appellant has assailed the impugned award of compensation of the learned Special Judge on the ground that the enhancement of the amount of compensation as made by the learned court below was illegal, arbitrary and without any basis and without considering the proper and correct market value of the acquired lands. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned court below has erred in categorizing the lands as Dhani II lands without any basis for such categorization and has also erred in awarding 30 per cent of the solitium on the value and interest @ 12 per cent per annum on the assessed amount besides the award of interest @ 15 per cent per annum under Sec. 34 of the Act. In addition, a further plea was taken that the reference under Sec. 18 of the Act was barred by limitation and that since the acquisition was made for the purposes of the Water Resources Development Department, the said Department ought to have been made necessary party in the proceedings.;