RAMESH KUMAR MERATHIA,J. - - (1.) MR . Mehta, appearing for the appellant, in support of the appeal, submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 5,369.40, which has been enhanced by the learned Land Acquisition Judge (L.A. Judge) to Rs. 2,05,200/ - without any basis. He further submitted that the learned L.A. Judge should have passed order on the basis of the rate report (Ext. C); and that the rate @ Rs. 1200 per decimal is not based on any evidence produced by the applicants.
(2.) ON the other hand, Mr. Debi Prasad, appearing for the respondents, submitted that Ext. C has been rightly rejected by L.A. Judge. He further submitted that against 1.71 acres of land acquired only Rs. 5,369.40 was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer which has been rightly enhanced by the learned LA Judge. The only question which arises in this appeal is whether the rate fixed by the learned L.A. Judge needs interference or not.
(3.) FROM Ext. C, it appears that on the basis of the agricultural produce, the rates of different lands were recommended. Moreover, the person who prepared the said rate report was not examined in the case. The learned L.A. Judge has rightly held that such ate report was not admissible in evidence and it cannot be relied upon because it does not reflect about the actual valuation of the land of Mouza Dobari in question.;