Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 251 (PAT)

State Of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Pandey

1996-04-09

P.K.SARIN

body1996
Judgment P. K. Sarin, J. 1. This appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act has been filed against the judgment and award dated 9.6.1989 passed by Land acquisition Judge, Katihar,in Land acquisition Case No.50 of 1977. 2. It appears that the appellant acquired 1.65 acres of land of R. S. Plot no.868 and 1.90 acres of land of R. S. Plot No.868 and 1.90 in Mouza harprasad, Thana 304 in the district of katihar. The Land Acquisition Officer valued the Bhith-II land at the rate of rs.3,500/- per acre and orchard land at the rate of Rs.5,200/- per acre. Plot no.673 is said to be orchard while plot no.885 is said to be Bhith land. Reference under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition act was made with the district Judge, Katihar, at the instance of respondents who alleged that the compensation awarded by the Land acquisition Officer was inadequate. The respondents claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.9,000/- per acre for the bhith land and Rs.70,000/- per acre for the orchard land. The appellant contested the claim of the respondents before the Reference Court and supported the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer. 3. Nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents in support of the claim. Sri Ram Nath Sharma, a. W.1, and Sri Azam Uddin, A. W.2, in their statements, stated that there were 30-40 mango trees, 30-35 Shisham trees and some guava and other trees in the orchard of the respondents. Sri Mohan jha, A. W.3 proved one sale deed (Exhibit-1) which was, however, taken back by the respondents, as such the said sale deed was not taken into account by the reference court. AW.4, Besh mohammad, stated that his father and uncle had jointly purchased 1.25 acres of land in the Harprashad Mouza for a consideration amount of Rs.7,000/-. Abdul Salim, A. W.5, stated that there were 50-60 mango trees and 40-50 shisham trees in the orchard of the respondents. He further stated that he used to purchase the branches of shisham trees from the respondents. Sri Pradeep Sharma, A. W.6, is a village Level Worker. He has stated that he had prepared cost of production of the land of the respondents in the year 1975 (Exhibit-2 ). A. W.8, Sri Rameshwar Pandey, the father of the respondents, has stated that the acquired award land is fertile land. Sri Pradeep Sharma, A. W.6, is a village Level Worker. He has stated that he had prepared cost of production of the land of the respondents in the year 1975 (Exhibit-2 ). A. W.8, Sri Rameshwar Pandey, the father of the respondents, has stated that the acquired award land is fertile land. He further stated that in plot No.673 there were large number of tree of mango, shisham, Nariyal, guava, etc. and also some medicinal plant. He stated that the annual income from the orchard was Rs.4,000/- by selling the fruits, Rs.3,500/- from sale of branches of shisham trees, Rs.1,000/- by selling the products of medicinal plants and Rs.1,000/- from sale of guava fruits. AW.9, Dwarika Nath Pandey, is the brother of father of the respondents. He stated that the acquired land was of better quality. As regards orchard in plot No.673 he stated that there were mango, shisham, Jamun, Nariyal and guava trees in the orchard and also some medicinal plants. According to his statement the annual income from the plants of harrey and other medicinal plants was Rs.5,000/- and from selling the fruits Rs.4,000/- and from sale of branches of Shisham trees Rs.3,500/-and from sale of guava Rs.1,000/-. No evidence was led on behalf of the appellant to rebut the evidence led by the respondents. 4. The learned Reference Court placed reliance on a copy of the award (Exhibit-3) passed in Land Acquisition case No.52 of 1977 under which one kedar Pandey was awarded compensation at the rate of. Rs.5,500/- per acre for Bhith land and Rs.6,500/- per acre for orchard land. Learned Reference court found that the land of Kedar pandey was adjacent to the acquired land of the respondents and same was acquired under the same scheme. The reference Court placing reliance on the said award determined the market value of the Bhith Land of the respondents at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per acre. As regards orchard, the learned reference Court did not take the rate for determination in the said award as comparable rate for determining the value of the orchard of the respondents. The reference Court placing reliance on the said award determined the market value of the Bhith Land of the respondents at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per acre. As regards orchard, the learned reference Court did not take the rate for determination in the said award as comparable rate for determining the value of the orchard of the respondents. The Reference Court rightly observed that the value of the orchard would depend upon the income of orchard and there was no material on the record to show as to what was the income derived from the orchard of kedar Pandey and as to how many trees were there in his orchard. Reference court further found that A. W.8 has stated that only half of the orchard was acquired and there were at least 30 shisham trees and more than 50 mango trees in the remaining orchard. According to the statement of A. W.9, there were 100 mango trees and about 60 shisham trees in the entire orchard. The Learned Land Acquisition reference Court, after making deduction from the cost of production and maintenance of the orchard and taking into account the income of half of the orchard fixed the value of the required orchard land at the rate of Rs.20,000/-per acre. The net income from the orchard standing on the acquired land was assessed at Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) per acre per year. The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that enhancing the market value of the acquired land by the reference Court is not based on any evidence on record. He further contended that the value fixed by the Reference court is highly excessive and it ought to be reduced. 5. As regards contention that the value fixed by the Reference Court is excessive, it does not appear to have any force. Perusal of the impugned judgment itself shows that the Reference court although did not place reliance on the oral evidence led on behalf of the respondents for the market rate of the acquired land but it placed reliance on the award made in Land acquisition Case No.52 of 1977, the judgment of the said case is Exhibit-3 on the record. Exhibit-3 shows that the land of Sri Kedar Pandey from plots no.678 and 674 of the same village were area acquired under the same scheme. That judgment is dated 27.4.1982. Exhibit-3 shows that the land of Sri Kedar Pandey from plots no.678 and 674 of the same village were area acquired under the same scheme. That judgment is dated 27.4.1982. It shows that the market value of the first Bhith land was determined at the rate of Rs.5,500/- per acre while value of orchard was determined at the rate of Rs.65,000/- per case. In that case the income derived from the acquired portion of the orchard was found to be about Rs.10,000/- per year and after making deduction for the maintenance net income was assessed to be Rs.6,000/- to Rs.7,000/-. In the present case, the Reference Court did not adopt the value assessed for orchard land in the judgment of Land Acquisition case No.52 of 1977. Instead it assessed the net income on appraisal of the evidence. After making deduction for the probable cost of production and maintenance of the orchard, net income has been assessed at Rs.1,000/- per annum. It does not appear to be excessive. Fixing the market value some guess work is always permissible and Reference Court has weighed the evidence after making approximate deduction from the cost of production and maintenance and held the income to be Rs.1,000/- per year and on its basis the rate has been fixed at Rs.20,000/- per acre for the orchard land. It may be mentioned that there was no evidence in rebuttal of the evidence led by the respondents regarding the number and nature of trees and the income derived therefrom. In these circumstances, the Reference Court cannot be said to have erred in fixing the value of the orchard on the basis of evidences led on behalf of the respondents. 6. The market value assessed by the reference Court appears to be just and reasonable. The appellant has failed to show that the market value fixed was excessive. In these circumstances, there appears to be no merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. Appeal Dismissed.