STATE OF BIHAR Vs. GAYA DAYAL SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise out of the common judgment which have been heard together and have been accordingly disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) FACTS which are not in dispute and it would be sufficient for disposal of these two appeals lie in a very narrow compass. The State of Bihar through collector of district-Bhojpur had acquired 12.73 acres of land in the town of Arrah for construction of residential houses by Bihar State Housing Board. From the valuation report Exhibit-B/1, it is clear that the notification under Section-4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) that the aforementioned acquisition was made sometime in the year 1974, for which a notification in the Official Gazette vide notification no. 7051 dated 30.09.1974 was published in the district Gazette on 16.12.1974. The declaration under Section-6 was made on 08.10.1977 and that too was published in the district Gazette on 01.11.1976. The objections were invited under Section-9 and the persons interested in the land had while staking claim as landholders had adduced evidence with regard to quality and prevalent market rate whereafter a valuation report was submitted by way of a comparative valuation of the sale statement fixing Rs. 9278/- per acre and the same was also approved by the Land Acquisition Officer (Collector under the Act) and subsequently an award was made in the year 1981.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondents- landlord, on the other hand has submitted that the scheme of the Act is quite specific and clear and at least after 1984, when a massive amendment was brought in the Act introducing Section-28(A) for making an earlier award, the basis for enhancement of the disposed of cases by allowing the same higher amount, no fault can be found in the impugned judgment and award, inasmuch as, the Court below has only followed the market price decided in the judgment dated 22.06.1992 in Land Acquisition Case No. 4 of 1982 (Exhibit-3/A). He has further submitted that the land acquisition proceedings is quite old and therefore, this Court should not interfere with the awarded amount as admittedly the respondent landlord had lost their valuable land. In this context, he has also referred to the oral evidence of PW-1 to PW-8 to support his contention that several educational institutions were found to be in existence in the year 1994 in and around the acquired land of Respondent landholders. He has also placed reliance on the report of the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Court has to decide, for advancing his submission that even if there is no threadbare at the discussion on the issue of land being of the same quality as that of L.A Case No. 4 of 1981 in the impugned judgment this Court exercising its appellate jurisdiction can take into account that plot no. 192 to 280, 281 and 283 were the subject matter of L.A Case No. 4 of 1982, whereas plot nos. 315 to 334 were the subject matter of the land acquisition case of the respondent-land holders and as such this Court could uphold that the valuation of Rs. 2500/- per katha i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh) per acre when according to him is neither exhorbitant nor arbitrary. It has also been suggested that, since Exhibit-3/A the judgment of L.A. Case no. 4 of 1982 was taken on record on the last date of the hearing without any objection on the part of the State, this Court should not now disturb the findings and the conclusion arrived by the Court below in fixing the amount of compensation of the acquired land of the respondent-land holders based on the said judgment of L.A. Case no. 4 of 1982.