State Of Bihar v. Kadey Majhi — 1999 DIGILAW 485 (PAT)

Judgment D. N. Prasad, J. 1. This appeal has arisen against the judgment and award passed by subordinate Judge-I, Saraikella in L. A. Reference Case No.12 (5) of 1984 by which the learned Sub-Judge fixed the value of the tank in question at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per bigha, besides the interest by the judgment dated 17.12.1988. 2. The short facts as alleged by the applicants/respondents are that an area of 5 acres 57 decimals of land of Khata No.69, Mouza jumal, P. S. Govindpur was acquired by the land Acquisition Officer in connection with icha Right Main Canal. After due notification and service of notice, the award was prepared on 26.3.1984. The petitioners also received the amount on 12.5.1984 on protest and an application for reference was also filed claiming therein that the lands acquired have been grossly undervalued and the market value of the land in question should have been more than Rs.50,000/- per acre as regards Don-1 land and Rs.40,000/- per acre for Don-!i land. Likewise, Don-III land should be valued at Rs.35,000/- per acre and Rs.1 lac per acre for the tank as well as Rs.60/- per cubic feet for the trees standing on the lands acquired. It is claimed that there is one mango tree, one Arjun tree, 20 Babul trees and 18 Black Bair trees. It is also pleaded that the claimants/respondents have sustained considerable damage due to acquisition of the land and for which an award of Rs.50,000/- should also be assessed. It is also pleaded that the tank of the petitioners was acquired from the middle portion and, therefore, the remaining portion became useless" and for which compensation should have been made for Rs.50.000/- and the Land acquisition Officer, has assessed the value very less and, as such, the petitioners are entitled for enhanced compensation. 3. Both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in the lower Court and after considering the evidence on record, the learned Court below passed the impugned judgment. 4. Not being satisfied with the judgment and award, the appellants (State of Bihar) preferred this appeal claiming therein that the value of the tank should not be at Rs.20,000/- per bigha and the learned Court below has committed error in assessing the value of the tank in excess and the value assessed at the rate of rs.20,000/- per bigha is without any basis 5. The respondents also filed a crossappeal under Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming therein that the judgment and award passed by the lower Court in respect of the amount of payment are incorrect and wrong as the market value of the Don-I land would be not less than Rs.50,000/- per acre and Don-II land of Rs.40,000/- per acre. It is further pleaded that the tank and the trees have also been acquired and due to which there was damage to the petitioners and the compensation of Rs.50.000/- as being the damage for severance of the land. The Court below has assessed the value of the land which is very little amount and the land of an area of four acres which is of nature of Don-I land, but it has not been considered by the lower Court and the compensation should also be enhanced. 6. Both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence and as such it is essential to look into the evidence on record in connection with the assessment of the land in question. 7. A. W.1 Laxmi Narayan Manjhi deposed that the tank of the petitioners/respondents was also acquired and there are trees standing on the ridge of the said tank. According to him. they were growing paddy twice in a year, but he is silent about the market value of the land or tank in question. He is also unable to say about the actual number of trees standing over the ridge of the tank, but he claimed in his cross-examination that there was a value of the tank at Rs.25,000/- per bigha at the time of acquisition. 8. A. W.2 Thakra Manjhi stated that there was a big tank. According to him, there was also production of fish at about 51/2 maunds in a year, but admittedly, there is no cogent document in this respect to establish such statement. He further stated in his cross-examination that Bakar Ali used to purchase the said fish. 9. P. W.3 Krishna Chandra stated that he has also got the tank and he had also received the award amount for the land being acquired and he proved the notice Ext.1, but he admitted in his cross-examination that his village is situated about 25/26 miles away from the village of the applicants. 9. P. W.3 Krishna Chandra stated that he has also got the tank and he had also received the award amount for the land being acquired and he proved the notice Ext.1, but he admitted in his cross-examination that his village is situated about 25/26 miles away from the village of the applicants. He further admitted this his tank has similar to the tank of the applicants. 10. A. W.4 Sk. Bakar Ali deposed that he used to catch fish about 50 to 60 maunds in a year and after selling the fish, he used to pay the money to Kadey Manjhi, the respondent. He proved the sada paper of account. Ext.2. He admitted in his cross-examination that he does not keep the account in respect of the sale and purchase of the fish. 11. A. W.6, Anant Kumar Hembrum stated that the water was available in the tank for the whole year and villagers also used to take the water for drinking, but he does not state about the market value of the tank. 12. A. W.8 Kadey Manjhi, the applicant/ respondent stated that the land as well as some portion of the tank as also acquired for which the compensation was made but the said compensation was not just and proper, rather it was very less. He further stated that one portion of ridge was also acquired on which there were 20 trees of Babul.18 trees of bair and one tree of Arjun. There was production of fish in the said tank and, as such, the valuation of the tank was very meagre. He further deposed that the value of the land of Don-1 was at Rs.50,000/- per acre, whereas Don-11 land at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre. He admitted in his cross-examination that he has not filed any Khatiyan and he had not purchased or sold any land in the years 1982/83/84. 13. On the other hand, the O. P. No.1 john Tuti has proved the assessment rate. Ext. A. According to him, he had gone through the sale deed in the office of the Registry. Chaibassa for determining the market value of the land of the said village and the value assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer is correct. 13. On the other hand, the O. P. No.1 john Tuti has proved the assessment rate. Ext. A. According to him, he had gone through the sale deed in the office of the Registry. Chaibassa for determining the market value of the land of the said village and the value assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer is correct. He admitted in his cross-examination that he had not examined about the production of fish in the said tank nor he had assessed the income of the said fish yearly. 14. O. P. No.2 Ram Chandra Tiwari proved the sale chart, Ext. B/1. 15. It is an admitted position that none of the parties produced any sale deed in connection with the market value of the land or tank at the time of acquisition. The applicants/ respondents produced some sada chitha, Exts.2 to 5 indicating about the account of the fish, but the said sada chitha cannot be relied upon in absence of the solid and cogent evidence. PW 1 admittedly deposed that the market value of the tank at the time of the acquisition was at Rs.25,000/- per bigha. Ext.8 is the khatiyan of the land acquired by the Land acquisition Department being plot No.1812 has been shown as tank measuring an area of four acres 32 decimals was in possession of devraj Manjhi and Kadey Manjhi. Obviously, don-I, Don-II and Don-III lands were acquired by the Land Acqusition Department and from perusal of Ext. C the order sheet of L. A. Case no.14 of 1983-84 it appears that the value of the lands of Don-I, II and III have been assessed at the rate of Rs.16,850/-, Rs.15,165/ and Rs.11,795/- respectively per acre. It is true that the witnesses have deposed about growing paddy twice in a year in the field, but no document to this effect has been filed. I have already discussed above that not a single sale-deed has been produced from the side of the applicants/respondents to show about the market value of the lands, either Don-I. or Don-II and Don-III at the time of acquisition. Thus, i find that the learned Court below has rightly assessed the value of the said lands on the basis of the assessment made by the Land Acquisition Officer. 16. It is an admitted position that two acres 76 decimals of land acquired in the total area of the tank. Thus, i find that the learned Court below has rightly assessed the value of the said lands on the basis of the assessment made by the Land Acquisition Officer. 16. It is an admitted position that two acres 76 decimals of land acquired in the total area of the tank. Sada Chitha being Exts.2 to 5 were filed to show about the income from the fish from the total area of the tank comprising four acres 32 decimals of land, but an area of two acres 76 decimals of land was only acquired. Moreover, the sada chitha cannot be the determining factor in the assessment of the market price of the tank at the time of acquisition. The statement of A. W.1 is also without any corroboration about the actual value of the tank though this witness. A. W.1 admitted in his evidence about the value of the tank at Rs.25,000/- per bigha. 17. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Banguru Rao Naidu V/s. Revenue divisional Officer, "the best evidence of the market value of the acquired land is afforded by transaction of sale in respect of that very acquired land, provided of course, there is nothing to doubt the authenticity of the transaction. High Court should not interfere with the award made on reasonable basis". But no any sale deed has been cited in this case by the claimant in support of the contention. In this view of the matter, the learned Court below has rightly assessed the value of the tank at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per bigha which can be proper and reasonable as admittedly only a portion of the tank was acquired and the total area of the tank has not been disturbed. 18. It is also clear from the impugned order that the value of the trees at the rate of rs.500/- per tree has already been assessed. In absence of any cogent document in connection with the actual market value of the tree. In my view the learned Court below has rightly assessed the value of the tree at the rate of Rs.500/- per tree. 19. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants/respondents argued that the market value of the tank has been less valued and the correct market value has not been assessed. In my view the learned Court below has rightly assessed the value of the tree at the rate of Rs.500/- per tree. 19. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants/respondents argued that the market value of the tank has been less valued and the correct market value has not been assessed. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants/respondents further argued that the interest as required under Sec.23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition act has also not been awarded for which the applicants are entitled to. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended before me that the learned court below has assessed at the higher rate of the market value in connection with the tank. It is pertinent to mention here that there is no objection in this appeal from the side of the appellant in respect of the assessment of the other lands and trees. There is only objection in respect of the determination of the market value of the tank. 20. I have already discussed above that not a single sale-deed has been produced from either side showing the market value of the land or tank at the relevant time. The sada chitha Exts.2 to 5 have been produced from the side of the applicants showing the income from the production in fish in the tank. However, nor any document produced in respect of the yearly production of the crop over the land in question. In the above facts and circumstances and considering the evidence on record, it is clear that the learned Court below has rightly assessed the value of the lands as well as the tank and trees which were acquired by the Land Acquisition Department and there appears no need to interfere with the said assessment. However, it is apparent that the interest, as required under Sec.23 (1-A) of the land Acquisition Act has not been awarded of which in my view the applicants/respondents are also entitled to. Thus, I find that the applicants/respondents are also entitled to 12 per cent interest per annum on the market value of the land from the date of publication of Notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act or the date of taking possession of the land whichever is earlier. Thus, the award on the point of interest only is to be modified in the manner indicated above. Thus, the award on the point of interest only is to be modified in the manner indicated above. 21. Accordingly, the judgment dated 17.12.1988. passed by the Subordinate Judge-I, Saraikella is, hereby, affirmed and maintained, save and except the rate of interest granted to the claimants as under Sec.23 (1-A)of the Land Acquisition Act. In the result, the appeal and the cross-objection are, hereby, dismissed but without costs. Appeal and cross-objections dismissed.