Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1408 (ALL)

State Of U. P. v. Kali Deen

2002-10-03

B.K.RATHI

body2002
JUDGMENT : - B. K. Rathi, J. 1. THIS first appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 30.4.1992 passed by Sri R. K. Shukla, Additional District Judge, Allahabad in Land Acquisition Reference No. 85 of 1989 under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. I have heard the standing counsel for the appellants and Shri S. D. Shukla for respondent. The land was acquired for the construction of canal. The notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued on 14.2.1984 and under Section 6 (1) of the Act on 1.1.1985. The possession of the land was taken on 31.3.1987 and the award was also delivered on that day. The compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer varied from Rs. 11,814.35 paise per bigha to Rs. 9,623.78 per bigha, according to the quality of the land, 30% solatium and interest were also awarded according to the law. 3. THE claimants were not satisfied with the award and, therefore, reference was made at their instance under Section 18 of the Act. THE said reference has been allowed by the impugned judgment. THE market value of the land has been fixed at Rs. 20,000 per bigha. Rs. 5,000 has been awarded for loss due to severance of the plot. THE State felt aggrieved by the enhancement of the compensation and, therefore, preferred this appeal. 4. IT appears that before the reference court, the respondent examined himself as P.W. 1 and stated regarding the location of the land. He also stated regarding the potential value and further stated that it can fetch Rs. 50,000 per bigha. However, that statement is not very material and can be of no help in assessing the market value. The reason is that everybody considers his article to be very valuable. The statement of the respondent is only his wishful thinking. An exemplar was filed by the opposite party which is sale deed dated 31.3.1986 but the same has been ignored by the reference court on the ground that it is of much later period and is of no help in determining the market value. 5. THE trial court, however, has relied on the judgment of L.A. Case No. 94 of 1990 dated 9.3.1989 in which the market value of land was assessed to be Rs. 20,000 per bigha. 5. THE trial court, however, has relied on the judgment of L.A. Case No. 94 of 1990 dated 9.3.1989 in which the market value of land was assessed to be Rs. 20,000 per bigha. Following that judgment, the compensation has been enhanced for the respondent. 6. IT has been argued by the standing counsel that the reference court has erred in relying on the above judgment as the land of that case belongs to a different village Gulchapa whereas the land of the present is in the different village Mah Tikar. IT is further argued that the notification under Section 4 of the present case was issued on 14.2.1984, whereas the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act in the case of which the judgment has been relied on was issued on 9.3.1989 that is after 5 years. These facts have not been considered. In the circumstances, the reference court has erred in treating the judgment in L.A. Case No. 94 of 1990 as exemplar. The same can be of no assistance in assessing the market value of the land in dispute. It is settled law that it is for the claimant to prove that the compensation awarded was inadequate and also as to what amount should be awarded as compensation. I find that there is no other evidence by respondent to prove the above facts. Therefore, the enhancement of the compensation by the reference court is not justified. 7. THE reference court has also awarded Rs. 5,000 for loss due to severance of the plot. It is not disputed that the canal has divided the land of the respondent in two parts, therefore, award for Rs. 5,000 on this ground is justified. 8. IN view of the above, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned judgment of the court below is quashed except to the extent of awarding Rs. 5,000 for loss due to the severance. IN the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal.