Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1187 (RAJ)

Jagnnath v. District Judge, Tonk

2011-05-31

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2011
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This appeal has been filed against the judgment of District Judge Tonk dated 30.9.2003 passed in Reference Application Case No. 157/1997 whereby the reference applications of the applications filed under Section 18 of the Central Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Rajasthan amendment 1987) (in short "the Act") were dismissed against the award of the Land Acquisition Officer (Sub Divisional Officer) Tonk dated 19.8.1996 in case No. 2/1994. 2. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary. 3. The facts in brief are that by the Notification dated 15.9.1994 of the Deputy Secretary Industries (Group-1), Government of Rajasthan, their intention of acquiring land for the public purposes for developing industrial area for RIICO in village Roopwas, Tehsil Niwai District Tonk measuring 371 Bighas and 10 Biswas of land. The Notification was also published in two local News papers dated 15.12.1994. The appellants submitted objections before the Land Acquisition Officer (Sub Divisional Officer) Tonk but the Land Acquisition Officer without hearing the appellants sent the report under Section 5A of the Act to the State Government through the Collector Tonk. On satisfying with the report of the Land Acquisition Officer, Tonk, the Deputy Secretary Industries (Group-1) of the Government of Rajasthan issued Notification under Section 6 of the Act and published the same in the Raj Gazette dated 7.11.95 and the same was also published in two local news papers. The Land Acquisition Officer issued notice under Section 9(1) of the Act to the khatedars/land holders. The khatedars submitted their consent to the Land Acquisition Officer that their land is surrounded by National Highway No. 12 and as per the rates applicable to Sitapura Sukhpuria land acquired for RIICO may be made applicable to them. Some of the objectors stated that the market value of the land is presently 6,00,000 per bigha. The Land Acquisition Officer notified 6.2.96 for information to notify the award. Their objections were invited upto 13.2.1996. The Land Acquisition Officer sent its report to the Government including No. 2/1994. 2. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary. 3. The Land Acquisition Officer notified 6.2.96 for information to notify the award. Their objections were invited upto 13.2.1996. The Land Acquisition Officer sent its report to the Government including No. 2/1994. 2. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary. 3. The facts in brief are that by the Notification dated 15.9.1994 of the Deputy Secretary Industries (Group-1), Government of Rajasthan, their intention of acquiring land for the public purposes for developing industrial area for RIICO in village Roopwas, Tehsil Niwai District Tonk measuring 371 Bighas and 10 Biswas of land. The Notification was also published in two local News papers dated 15.12.1994. The appellants submitted objections before the Land Acquisition Officer (Sub Divisional Officer) Tonk but the Land Acquisition Officer without hearing the appellants sent the report under Section 5A of the Act to the State Government through the Collector Tonk. On satisfying with the report of the Land Acquisition Officer, Tonk, the Deputy Secretary Industries (Group-1) of the Government of Rajasthan issued Notification under Section 6 of the Act and published the same in the Raj Gazette dated 7.11.95 and the same was also published in two local news papers. The Land Acquisition Officer issued notice under Section 9(1) of the Act to the khatedars/land holders. The khatedars submitted their consent to the Land Acquisition Officer that their land is surrounded by National Highway No. 12 and as per the rates applicable to Sitapura Sukhpuria land acquired for RIICO may be made applicable to them. Some of the objectors stated that the market value of the land is presently, 6,00,000 per bigha. The Land Acquisition Officer notified 6.2.96 for information to notify the award. Their objections were invited upto 13.2.1996.The Land Acquisition Officer sent its report to the Government including the objections. The Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of the report of the Sub Registrar Niwai passed the award dated 19.8.96. 4. The award of the Land Acquisition Officer was mainly based on the report of the Sub Registrar Niwai and an award of Rs. 1,33,10,576/- was passed acquiring 371 Bigha and 10 Biswas land in village Roopwas. 5. Aggrieved against the award dated 19.8.96 the appellants preferred reference application before the District Judge Tonk under Section 18 of the Act. 4. The award of the Land Acquisition Officer was mainly based on the report of the Sub Registrar Niwai and an award of Rs. 1,33,10,576/- was passed acquiring 371 Bigha and 10 Biswas land in village Roopwas. 5. Aggrieved against the award dated 19.8.96 the appellants preferred reference application before the District Judge Tonk under Section 18 of the Act. After receiving the notice of the Reference Application, the respondents 3 to 5 filed their written statement on 27.3.98. 6. The DJ framed 9 issued in the reference application. The appellants and the respondent RIICO produced evidence and documents in support of its case. 7. After hearing the arguments, the DJ, Tonk rejected this reference application along with other 10 reference applications vide his order dated 30.9.2003. Aggrieved against the order of the DJ on the reference application, the appellants filed this appeal under Section 54 of the Act clamming that they have not been given the value of the land as per the market value and the provisions of the Land Acquisition have not been followed in letter and spirit. 8. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the RIICO. 9. Before proceeding further it would be necessary to have a look at the judgment of the Apex Court in Karnataka Housing Board vs. LAO, (2011) 2 SCC 246 wherein it has been held as under: "5. We may deal with the last submission first. The standard method of determination of the market value of any acquired land is by the valuer evaluating the land on the date of valuation (publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894- "the Act" for short) notification, acting as a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase the land in open market at the prevailing price on that day, from a seller willing to sell such land at a reasonable price. Thus, the market value is determined with reference to the open market sale of comparable land in the neighbourhood, by a willing seller to a willing buyer, on or before the date of preliminary notification, as that would give a fair indication of the market value. A "willing seller" refers to a person who is not acting under any pressure to sell the property, that is, where the sale is not a distress sale. A "willing seller" refers to a person who is not acting under any pressure to sell the property, that is, where the sale is not a distress sale. A willing seller is a person who knowing the advantage and disadvantages of his property, sells the property after ascertaining the prevailing market prices at the fair and reasonable value. Similarly, a willing purchaser refers to a person who is not under any pressure or compulsion to purchase the property, and who, having the choice of different properties, voluntarily decides to buy a particular property by assessing its advantages and disadvantages and the prevailing market value thereof. Of course, unless there are indications to hold otherwise, all sale transactions under registered sale deeds will be assumed to be normal sales by willing sellers to willing purchasers. Where however there is evidence or indications that the sale was not at prevailing fair market value, it has to be ignored." 10. The crux of the judgment of the Apex Court is that the standard method of determination of the market value of any acquired land is by the valuer evaluating the land on the date of valuation (publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 11. In the instant appeal the Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of the report of the Sub Registrar Niwai passed the award dated 19.8.96. 11. In the instant appeal the Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of the report of the Sub Registrar Niwai passed the award dated 19.8.96. The award of the Land Acquisition Officer dated 19.8.96 reads as under: ^^i=koyh is'k gqbZA rglhy fuokbZ ftyk Vksad esa f}rh; vkS|ksfxd {ks= :iokl gsrq Hkwfe vokfIr ds lEcU/k esa 'kklu mi lfpo] m|ksx ¼xzqi 1½ foHkkx jktLFkku t;iqj }kjk dsUnzh; Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kfu;e 1984 esa ¼jktLFkku½ la'kks/ku 1987½ ds vUrxZr xzke :iokl dh 371 ch?kk 10 fcLok Hkwfe dk vokfIr dh vf/klwpuk Øekad i- 4¼21½ m@1@93 fnukad 15-9-94 dks tkjh dh xbZ ftldk jktLFkku jkti= esa fnukad 15-9-94 dks izdk'ku gqvk rFkk nks LFkkuh; nSfud lekpkj i=ksa nSfud rkt Hkkjrh esa fnukad 15-12-1994 dks izdkf'kr dh xbZA bl vf/klwpuk dk izdk'ku o fof/kor rkehy lacaf/kr i{kdkjku ij djkbZ xbZ vkifRrdrkZvksa }kjk izLrqr vkifRr;ksa ij lquokbZ dh tkdj bl dk;kZy; ds i=kad 101-102 fnukad 29-6-95 }kjk /kkjk 5¼,½ ds vUrxZr oLrq fLFkfr dh fjiksVZ jkT; ljdkj dks ftyk dysDVj] Vksad ds ek/;e ls fHktokbZ xbZA Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh ¼mi[k.M vf/kdkjh½ Vksad dh fjiksVZ ls larq"V gksdj jkT; ljdkj 'kklu mi lfpo m|ksx ¼xzqi 1½ foHkkx] jktLFkku t;iqj us dsUnzh; Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh foKfIr Øekad i- 4¼21½ m|ksx@1@93 fnukad 24-8-95 }kjk tkjh dh xbZ ftldk izdk'ku jktLFkku jkti= esa fnukad 7-11-95 dks gqvkA nks LFkkuh; nSfud lekpkj i=ksa esa Hkh bl vf/klwpuk dks izdk'ku djk;k x;kA fuEu gLrk{kjdrkZ }kjk Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kfu;e 1894 dh /kkjk 9¼1½ ds vUrxZr fgr/kkfj;ksa dks uksfVl tkjh dj fnukad 30-9-95 rd vkifRr;ka vkeaf=r dh xbZA leLr fgr/kkfj;ksa dh vksj ls ,d izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k x;k ftlesa jk"Vªh; jktekxZ 12 ij xzke lhrkiqjk lq[kiqfj;k esa fjdks }kjk Hkwfe vokIr dh xbZ FkhA ogh jsV fnykus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;kA bl vkosnu i= esa ;g Hkh mYys[k fd;k x;k fd xzke :iokl esa 6 yk[k #i;s izfr ch?kk dh nj ls jftLVªh gqbZ gS rFkk Ms< yk[k #i;s izfr ch?kk dh Hkh jftLVªh gks pqdh gSA i{kdkjku dh vksj ls vius bl dFku dh iqf"V esa dksbZ izek.k vkfn izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k] ftlls mldk foospu dj dksbZ fu.kZ; fy;k tkrkA vkifRr;ksa dh lquokbZ ds nkSjku ;g rF; izdk'k esa vk;k fd [kljk ua- 133 dk jdck =qfVo'k 11 fcLok fy[k fn;k x;k gS tcfd okLro esa fjdkMZ ds vuqlkj bldk jdck 16 fcLok gS] bl izdkj dqy ;ksx 371 ch?kk 10 fcLok gksrk gSA bldh 'kqf) ds fy, fy[kk x;k vkSj fnukad 15-1-96 jkT; ljdkj dh vksj ls 'kqf) i= Hkh tkjh dj fn;k x;kA Hkwfe ij gks jgs fuekZ.k dk;Z dk eki o ewY;kadu lgk;d LFky vfHk;Urk jhdks ls djk;k x;k rFkk isM+ksa ds ewY;kadu ds fy, e.My ou vf/kdkjh Vksad ls vk/kkj izkIr fd;sA bu vk/kkjksa ij isM+ksa dh uki vkfn djk;k tkdj mudk ewY;kadu djk;k x;kA mi iath;d ¼rglhynkj½ fuokbZ ls /kkjk 4 dh vf/klwpuk ds izdk'ku ds le; Hkwfe dh njksa ds lEcU/k esa tkudkjh izkIr dh xbZA mi iath;d ds vuqlkj Hkwfe dh njsa fuEu izdkj j[kh gS& vflafpr Hkwfe 11]385-00 #- izfr ch?kk flafpr Hkwfe 21]780-00 #- izfr ch?kk jksM ds utnhd dh Hkwfe 1]15]000-00 #- izfr ch?kk jksM ds utnhd dh Hkwfe eq[; jksM ls ,d tjhc dh nwjh ekurs gq, jksM ds utnhd dh Hkwfe dk ewY;kadu djk;k x;kA /kkjk 12 dsUnzh; Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kfu;e ds uksfVl ij dqN fgr/kkfj;ksa }kjk Hkwfe dh dher ij vkifRr dh xbZ rFkk muds }kjk ,d jftLVªh is'k dh xbZ ftlesa 1000 oxZ xt yxHkx 7 fcLok dk foØ; 75]000@- #i;s esa fd;k x;k gSA gesa bl jftLVªh dk voyksdu fd;k ;g jftLVªh d`f"k Hkwfe ls vkcknh Hkwfe esa LFkkukarfjr dh gSA ftldks lkekU; nj ugha dgk tk ldrkA bl izdkj fo'ks"k {ks=Qy dk foØ; fo'ks"k egRo o fo'ks"k ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ;fn vf/kd ewY; ij gks tkrk gS rks mldks lkekU; ewY; ugha ekuk tk ldrkA lkekU; ewY; ogka gS ftl ij lk/kkj.k Ø; foØ; fd;k tkrk gSA bl izdkj ge mi iath;d fuokbZ ds dk;kZy; ls izkIr lwpuk dks gh mfpr vk/kkj le>rs gq, mlh nj ls Hkwfe vokMZ fuf'fpr djuk mfpr le>rs gS] vkSj blh vk/kkj ij vokMZ dk fu'p; fuEu izdkj fd;k x;k& Hkwfe ,oa isM+ksa dk ewY; ,oa Hkwfe ij gks jgs fuekZ.k dk;Z dk ewY; 92]11]696-00 12 izfr'kr okf"kZd nj ls 15-12-94 ls 29-2-96 rd dk C;kt 13]35]372-00 /kkjk 23¼11½ ds vuqlkj 30 izfr'kr lksfyf'k;e jkf'k 7]63]508-00 dqy ;ksx 1]33]10]576-00 i=koyh esa izR;sd [kkrsnkj@fgr/kkjh dk iw.kZ fooj.k ifjf'k"V cuk;k tkdj layXu fd;k x;k gS] tks bldk vfHkUu vax gS] mlh ds vk/kkj ij vokMZ dk Hkqxrku dk fu'p; fd;k tk;sxkA i=koyh vuqeksnu gsrq ftyk dysDVj Vksad ds ek/;e ls 'kklu mi lfpo m|ksx ¼xzqi-1½ foHkkx] jktLFkku t;iqj dks vuqeksnukFkZ izsf"kr dh tkus ij 'kklu mi lfpo m|ksx ¼xzqi-1½ foHkkx] jktLFkku t;iqj us i= Ø- i-4¼21½ m|ksx/1/93 fn- 5-8-96 ls 1]33]10]576-00 ¼v{kjs ,d djksM+ rSrhl yk[k nl gtkj ikap lkS fN;Urj #i;s ek=½ dk vokMZ vuqeksfnr gksdj izkIr gqvkA vr% layXu ifjf'k"V ds vuqlkj 1]33]10]576-00 #i;s dk vokMZ vfUre :i ls ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA** 12. It is clear from the award of the land Acquisition Officer, that it is based on the basis of the report of the Sub Registrar Niwai as per the Index maintained by him on the date of issue of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. 13. The DJ Tonk vide its order dated 30.9.2003 decided the reference applications Nos. 147/1997 to 169/1997 (in all 23 reference applications) and rejected the same. The appellants in these misc. appeals only have challenged the order of the DJ dated 30.9.2003 passed in reference applications Nos. 146, 147, 150, 152, 154, 159, 160, 163, 164 and 168 of 1997 on the ground that they have not been paid the sufficient amount of compensation as per the market value and the provisions of the Act have not been followed in letter and spirit. 14. This appeal related to reference application No. 157/1997. It was stated by the appellants that the compensation was not given to them as per the market value. It has been admitted by the appellant Jagnnath in his cross examination that he produced the Ex. 4 to 7 registered sale deed, but he does not know as to who has sold the land to whom. He stated that his land is 6-7 Kms. away from the Vanasthali Railway Station. The uncertified map shows that his land is away from National Highway about 2230, 2105, 2540, 2660, 2110 feet. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted as the value of the land was determined on the basis of the report of the Sub Registrar, Niwai and the determined compensation have also been paid to the appellants. 15. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted as the value of the land was determined on the basis of the report of the Sub Registrar, Niwai and the determined compensation have also been paid to the appellants. 15. The DJ in relation to issue No. 1, in reference application gave the following findings: ^^bl izdkj Åij fd;s x;s foospu ls ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZx.k dh tks Hkwfe vokIr dh xbZ gS mldh fLFkfr Åij fososfpr fd;s vuqlkj gS izkFkhZx.k ,slk fl) djus esa foQy jgs gS fd muls vokIr dh xbZ Hkwfe esa ls ckjkuh Hkwfe dk cktkj ewY; 6 yk[k #i;s izfr ch?kk vkSj pkgh Hkwfe dk cktkj ewY; 7 yk[k #i;s izfr ch?kk FkkA lqLFkkfir fof/k ds izdk'k esa ;g rF; rks gekjs fy;s lqlaxr gh ugha gS fd mDr Hkwfe dk vkt dk cktkj ewY; D;k gS\ D;ksafd vc ;g Hkwfe jhdks }kjk vokfIr ds ckn fodflr dj yh xbZ gSA blds vfrfjDr Hkh izkFkhZ x.k ,slk Hkh fl) djus esa iwjh rjg foQy jgs gS fd mDr vokIr Hkwfe dk orZeku ewY; 15 yk[k #i;s izfr ch?kk gS vr% fooknd la[;k 1 izkFkhZx.k ds fo:) rFkk foi{khx.k ds i{k esa fofuf'pr fd;k tkrk gSA 16. I have gone through the findings given by the DJ in the order dated 30.9.2003, in relation to reference application. In my opinion the findings given by the DJ on issue No. 1 in the reference application is just and proper. It may be mentioned that the Land Acquisition Officer in its award clearly stated that before passing the award, sent the same for approval by the State Government, a report was called from the Sub Registrar Niwai and the Sub Registrar Niwai vide letter dated 12.10.95 in relation to village Roopwas informed the rate of Index from the record as follows: Unirrigated land Rs. 11,385/- per Bigha Irrigated land Rs. 21,780/- per Bigha Near Road land Rs. 1,15,000 per Bigha The Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of the report of the Sub Registrar gave the award and the same cannot be said to be unjustified. The DJ in the detailed order came to the findings that the documents produced by the appellants were not related to the land pointed out by the appellants. 1,15,000 per Bigha The Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of the report of the Sub Registrar gave the award and the same cannot be said to be unjustified. The DJ in the detailed order came to the findings that the documents produced by the appellants were not related to the land pointed out by the appellants. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the DJ and the Land Acquisition Officer and the same cannot be said to be unjustified. I have also gone through the arguments raised by the appellants in the appeal and after consi-dering the same in my opinion the order passed by the DJ in the reference application is just and proper in the eye of law. The appellants have collected the award money and on consideration of the dispute raised by them in the reference application and in this appeals do not survive. The award money was based as per the market value at that time based on the report of the Sub Registrar Niwai. Thus the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants in this appeal are devoid of merit and hence rejected. 17. Similarly on issues Nos. The award money was based as per the market value at that time based on the report of the Sub Registrar Niwai. Thus the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants in this appeal are devoid of merit and hence rejected. 17. Similarly on issues Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 8, the DJ gave the following findings: bl izdkj Åij fd;s foospu rFkk mHk; i{kksa }kjk izLrqr lk{; dk voyksdu ;g n'kkZrk gS fd jsQsjsUldrkZ ,slk fl) djus esa foQy jgs gS fd mudh vkjkth;kr ds pkjksa vksj yxh gqbZ Mksy dk izfrdj os ,d yk[k #i;s ds fglkc ls vkSj vkjkth;kr esa fLFkr jlnkj ,oa bekjrh o{kksa dk eqvkotk Hkh ,d yk[k #i;s izfr o"kZ vk; ds fglkc ls ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSA jsQjsaldrkZ ,slk Hkh fl) djus esa foQy jgs gS fd muds }kjk izLrqr osY;qvj dh fjiksVZ ,oa r[kehuk fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij os Hkwfe ij cus iDds edku ,oa fctyh fQfVax] njokts] f[kM+dh vkfn ds fufeRr Hkh 10 yk[k #i;s eqvkotk jkf'k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSA bl izdkj dh dksbZ osY;qvj dh fjiksVZ o r[kehuk fjiksVZ izLrqr dj izkFkhZx.k }kjk izekf.kr ugha dh xbZ gSA jsQsjsUldrkZ ,slk fl) djus esa Hkh foQy jgs gS fd vius dq,] dqafM;k] gkst fctyh fQfVax] iEilsV] cksfjax vkfn ds fufeRr os 2]50]000 #i;s ls 3 yk[k #i;s rd dh eqvkotk jkf'k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSA bl lEcU/k esa dksbZ osY;qvj o r[kehuk fjiksVZ izLrqr dj fl) ugha dh xbZ gS jsQjsUl drkZvksa }kjk mDr enksa esa ftl izdkj ,d yk[k #i;s izfr o"kZ] 10 yk[k #i;s vkSj <+kbZ ls rhu yk[k #i;s dh eqvkotk jkf'k dh ftl izdkj ekax dh xbZ gS] og ekax muds }kjk bl fLFkfr dks fl) u fd;s tkus ds dkj.k fdlh Hkh izdkj Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA ;g ekax vR;ar vLi"V rFkk leqfpr vk/kkjksa ls jfgr gSA blds foijhr foi{khx.k ,slk izekf.kr djus esa lQy jgs gS muds vf/kdkfj;ksa us ekSds ij igqapdj izR;sd Hkwfe ij gq, fuekZ.k] cus gq, dqvkaasa rFkk yxs gq, isM+ksa dk fujh{k.k fd;kA mPpkf/kdkjh Hkh bl gsrq ekSds ij igqaps] fuekZ.k dks ns[kus gsrq ou foHkkx ds vf/kdkjh ekStwn Fks] mUgha ds }kjk ekSds ij ikbZ xbZ fLFkfr dk mYys[k djrs gq, ik;s x;s fuekZ.k] dq,a ,oa isM+ksa dk ewY;kadu fd;k x;kA bu lcdk voyksdu djus ds ckn gh Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh }kjk vokMZ ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k gSA ,slk dgha Hkh izrhr ugha gksrk fd vokMZ dks rS;kj djus ls iwoZ vko';d tkap ,oa ewY; dk fu/kkZj.k ugha fd;k x;k gks jktLFkku jkT; vkS|ksfxd fodkl ,oa fofu;ksx fuxe fyfeVsM jhdks us vius vf/kdkfj;ksa dks bl gsrq Vksad esa dsoy ek= blh dk;Z ds fy, fu;qDr fd;k] tSlk fd ,u-,-M- 1 rkjkpUn [k.Msyoky us vius c;kuksa esa O;Dr fd;k gSA isM+ vkfn ds lEcU/k esa ou foHkkx ds lgk;d ou laj{kd dh lsok;sa yh xbZ ,slk Hkh ugha gS fd dsoy ek= dk;kZy; esa cSBs cSBs vokMZ ikfjr dj fn;k x;k gS fdUrq lEcfU/kr mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa us ekSds ij igqapdj leLr dk;Zokgh dh fjiksVZ rS;kj dh gSA vokIr dh xbZ Hkwfe i;kZIr {ks=Qy dh Fkh vkSj ;g Hkwfe dbZ O;fDr;ksa dh Fkh] vr% ,slk Hkh laHko ugha gS fd ;g lc dk;Zokgh djus ds ckn Hkh HkwLokfe;ksa dks ;g fLFkfr ekywe ugha iM+s fd o`gn Lrj ij dk;Zokgh dj i;kZIr {ks=Qy dh Hkwfe dbZ [kkrsnkjksa ls vokIr dh tk jgh gSA bl izdkj ds ekeyksa esa okLrfod fLFkfr dh tkudkjh dk;kZy; ;k ?kj esa cSBs gq, ugha vfirq ekSds ij tkus ls gh gksuk laHko gSA gLrxr ekeys esa dbZ vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk ekSdk fujh{k.k ds mijkUr mudh fjiksVZ dks fopkj esa ysdj vokMZ rS;kj fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj rS;kj fd;s x;s vokMZ dks izkFkhZx.k }kjk fcuk vk/kkj ds mYysfyf[kr rF;ksa rFkk euekus :i ls ekaxh xbZ jkf'k ds vk/kkj ij ifjofrZr fd;k tkuk dnkfi U;k;ksfpr ugha gksrkA foi{khx.k dk ;g i{k iwjh rjg Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS fd vokIr'kqnk Hkwfe ij ekSds ij tkdj rS;kj dh xbZ ekSdk fjiksVZ esa of.kZr rF; ,oa lEcfU/kr mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa dh fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij jsQjsUldrkZvksa ds dCts dk'r ,oa [kkrsnkjh dh vkjkth;kr ,oa mu ij gks jgs fuekZ.k] edku] dq,a yxsa gq, o`{k vkfn dk eqvkotk fu/kkZfjr djrs gq, vokMZ ikfjr fd;s x;s gSA bl izdkj ;g fLFkfr Li"V gS fd izkFkhZx.k vkifRrdrkZx.k fooknd la- 2] 4 ,oa 5 dks vius i{k esa fl) djus esa foQy jgs gSA tcfd foi{khx.k fooknd la- 8 dks vius i{k esa fl) gksuk izekf.kr dj lds gS vkSj QyLo:i fooknd la- 2] 4 o 5 izkFkhZx.k ds fo:) ,oa fooknd la- 8 foi{khx.k ds i{k esa fofuf'pr fd;k tkrk gSA 18. I have gone through the findings given by the DJ on issues No. 2, 4, 5 and 8 in relation to reference application and in my opinion the findings are just and proper. The DJ in its order discussed each and every point with reasons. The findings arrived at by the DJ on issues No. 2, 4 and 5 against the appellants and in favour of the respondent RIICO and finding on issue No. 8 in favour of the RIICO cannot be said to be unjustified. The Forest Department officials and RIICO officials, all with detailed report calculated the amount and the same cannot be said to be unjustified. Thus the award of the Land Acquisition Officer and the findings of the DJ on issues No. 2, 4, 5 and 8 in the reference application stand confirmed. The arguments raised by the appellants in this appeal cannot be accepted and it cannot be said that the provisions of the Act have not been complied with by the Land Acquisition Officer in passing the award. 19. The arguments raised by the appellants in this appeal cannot be accepted and it cannot be said that the provisions of the Act have not been complied with by the Land Acquisition Officer in passing the award. 19. On issues No. 3 and 6, the DJ gave the following findings: Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh }kjk ikfjr vokMZ fnukad 19-8-96 ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd izkFkhZx.k dks Hkwfe ds ewY; ds vfrfjDr Hkwfe ij gks jgs fuekZ.k dk;Z ,oa yxs gq, isM+ksa vkfn dk ewY; tksM+dj eqvkotk jkf'k iznku dh xbZ gS vkSj bl jkf'k ij vf/klwpuk izdk'ku dh rkjh[k fnukad 15-12-94 ls Hkwfe dk dCtk izkfIr dh rkjh[k 29-2-96 rd 12% okf"kZd nj ls C;kt fnyk;k x;k gS blh jkf'k ij ^^vf/kfu;e** dh /kkjk 23 ¼2½ ds vuqlkj 30 izfr'kr lksysf'k;e jkf'k Hkh fnykbZ xbZ gSA ge ;g fu/kkZfjr dj pqds gS fd Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh }kjk izkFkhZx.k@vkifRrdrkZx.k dks fnykbZ xbZ jkf'k iwjh rjg ls mfpr gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZx.k ds i{k esa vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk ds vUrxZr dksbZ vkns'k fn;s tkus dh vko';drk izrhr ugha gksrh D;ksafd ;g izko/kku rks dsoy rc gh ykxw gksrk gS] tc U;k;ky; dh ;g jk; gks dh vokfIr vf/kdkjh }kjk tks jkf'k vf/kfuf.kZr dh xbZ gS og de gS vkSj blds vewd vf/kd jkf'k fnykbZ tkuh pkfg;s] rc gh ml vf/kd jkf'k ij Hkwfe dk dCtk ysus dh rkjh[k ls 9 izfr'kr izfro"kZ dh nj ls C;kt dk vkns'k fn;k tkuk mfpr gSA i=koyh ij izLrqr lk{; ls ,slk Hkh le{k vk;k gS fd Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh }kjk fu/kkZfjr fd;s x;s izfrdj dh jde fu;ekuqlkj izkFkhZx.k dks vnk dh tk pqdh gS vkSj yxHkx lHkh izkFkhZXk.k bl jde dks izkIr Hkh dj pqds gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa ^^vf/kfu;e** dh /kkjk 34 ds izko/kku ds vUrxZr Hkh bl ekeys esa dksbZ vkns'k fd;s tkus dh vko';drk izrhr ugha gksrhA blds vUrxZr rks vkns'k fd;k tkuk rc gh mfpr Fkk] tc dCtk ysus dh rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/k ds vUnj izfrdj jkf'k dk Hkqxrku ugha fd;k tkrk ;k ,slh izfrdj jkf'k tek ugha djkbZ tkrhA bl izdkj izkFkhZx.k Hkwfe dk dCtk fy;s tkus dh rkjh[k ls ,d lky dh vof/k rd 9 izfr'kr vksj blds mijkar pkgk x;k 15 izfr'kr okf"kZd dh nj ls C;kt Hkh izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh ugha gSA 20. I have gone through the findings arrived at by the DJ on issues 3 and 6. I have gone through the findings arrived at by the DJ on issues 3 and 6. The issues No. 3 and 6 were rightly decided against the appellants. The appellants are not entitled to any compensation under Section 34of the Act. The solatium and Compensation were also granted to the appellants within one year of the date of taking possession. The appellants are also not entitled to 9 per cent interest within one year and after that 15% interest. The findings arrived at by the DJ on these issues are just and proper. The appellants have already received the compensation as awarded in the award. The arguments raised by the appellants in this appeal are devoid of merit and thus rejected. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award after following the provisions of the Act. 21. I have also gone through the finding of the DJ on issue No. 7, which was to be proved by the respondent RIICO. It is true that the compensation awarded in the award has been received by the land owners. The RIICO has not been able to point out any provision in the Act that after receiving award money the land owners/applicants are not entitled to challenge the award before the reference court. Thus this issue was decided in favour of the appellants. 22. I have also gone through the findings on issue No. 9 by the DJ. The DJ in regard to issue No. 9 rightly observed that only issue No. 7 was decided in favour of the appellants and other issues have been decided against them and hence, the appellants are not entitled for any relief of amending the award. 23. For the reasons and the findings mentioned above, this misc. appeal deserves to be rejected and are hereby rejected. The award of the Land Acquisition Officer dated 19.8.1996 and the common order dated 30.9.2003 passed by the DJ on reference application No. 157 of 1997 stands confirmed. The appellants are not entitled to any relief. In the facts and circumstances of the case the parties are directed to bear their own costs.