JUDGMENT By Court Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the Respondents. 2. Perused the records and the proceedings. 3. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant/defendant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 27.03.1999 (Award signed on 09.04.1999), passed by Sri Devendra Prasad Singh, Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad in Land Acquisition Case No. 11 of 1995 on the various grounds enumerated in the first appeal. 4. This case was arisen out of Land reference proceedings carried out under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the District Land Acquisition Officer acting as Collector under the said Act for adjudicating over the adequacy of the compensation for the lands acquired. 5. The brief fact leading to this case is that 4.82 acres of land of Village Dobari, P.S. Jharia, District Dhanbad was acquired vide notification No. 2429 dated 16.08.1986 for mining purposes of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited out of which 39 decimals of land belonging to the applicant, which was in dispute, was to be acquired. It is also said that the aforesaid land of the applicant along with R.B. Alloy Factory situated over it has been also acquired by the State of Bihar. The Notification under Section 4 (i) of the Land Acquisition Act was promulgated on 16.08.1987 and subsequently declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 26.08.1987 and notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued to the land owners and after consideration of the matter involved in the valuation of the acquired land and house, the District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad fixed the valuation of the land in question. The applicant received the amount on protest and filed application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the delivery of possession of the land in question was given to the B.C.C.L. on 19th February, 1994. According to the Awardee/Applicant in Land Reference Case, Rs.59,239.24 paise fixed by the State of Bihar for 39 decimals of land including the Factory premises was inadequate and not according to the market value and the aforesaid amount fixed by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad is arbitrary and the applicant had challenged the said Award. According to the Awardee/Applicant in Land Reference Case, Rs.59,239.24 paise fixed by the State of Bihar for 39 decimals of land including the Factory premises was inadequate and not according to the market value and the aforesaid amount fixed by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad is arbitrary and the applicant had challenged the said Award. It was contended before the Land Acquisition Court that the Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad has not considered the valuation of the house/factory premises constructed over plot No. 84 and the District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad has failed to appreciate the valuation of the factory premises prepared and made by the Executive Engineer, P.W.D, Road Division, Dhanbad, who has valued at Rs.4,81,200/-. 6. After considering the documentary as well as oral evidence, the learned court below has passed an Award dated 27th March, 1999, by recording its findings and thereby holding that the applicant is entitled to get Rs.1,17,000/- for 39 decimals of land at the rate of Rs.3000/- per decimal. It was also held that the applicant is further entitled to get compensation of Rs.7,97,431/- towards construction cost including other charges for R.B. Alloy Factory. It was also decided that the applicant is also entitled to get additional compensation of market value of the land and factory etc. fixed by the Court at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of notification to the date of the Award as provided under Section 23 (i) (a) of the Act and the amount of solatium was also awarded at the rate of 30 per cent under Section 23 (ii) (a) of the Act + interest on the enhanced amount @ 9 per cent per annum for a period of one year from the date of decree and 15 per cent per annum after expiry of the period till the date of realization. 7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by this Award, the appellant-B.C.C.L. preferred this appeal on the ground that the learned court below has committed error while appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence on record and thereby committed error in enhancement of the Award. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned court below has failed to consider the issue with regard to limitation. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned court below has failed to consider the issue with regard to limitation. It is submitted that though it was specifically pleaded before the court below, the court below has neither framed any issue with regard to limitation nor discussed any thing about it in the judgment. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the claim put forward by the applicant for compensation was hopelessly time-barred and therefore, on this count alone, the appeal is required to be allowed and the judgment and Award passed by the learned court below is required to be quashed and set aside. In support thereof, the learned counsel for the appellant has referred Section 13 and 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and submitted that in view of Section 18, the application is required to be made before the competent authority within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the notice but in the instant case, no such application was made within the stipulated time and therefore, that issue, which was very crucial in the entire proceedings was not properly dealt with and considered by the court below. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the assessment made by the learned court below is also not just and proper and the same is contrary to the documentary as well as oral evidence on record. It is also submitted that the court below failed to appreciate evidence on record and position of law in its proper perspective and therefore, on this count also, the judgment and Award passed by the learned court below is required to be quashed and set aside. 9. As against that, learned counsel for the respondent while supporting the impugned judgment and Award delivered by the court below, submitted that the court below has taken into account the documentary as well as oral evidence adduced before the court below in its proper perspective and arrived at a just decision and thereby enhanced the compensation. It is submitted that the learned court below has taken in to account the scientific analysis and calculation submitted before it by the officers/persons those who are having expertise in the subject. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the assessment which was determined by the court below is just and proper. It is submitted that the learned court below has taken in to account the scientific analysis and calculation submitted before it by the officers/persons those who are having expertise in the subject. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the assessment which was determined by the court below is just and proper. The learned counsel for the Respondent while replying the issue with regard to limitation, submitted that the present respondent had, for the first time, received intimation with regard to the Award on 13th February, 1994. The notice issued under Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 12th February, 1994 was received by him on 13th February, 1994 and thereafter, the Respondent made an application before the competent authority on 24th March, 1994, i.e. within a period of six weeks from the date of the intimation. In this context, the learned counsel for the Respondent has also placed reliance on the provision as contained under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The learned counsel for the Respondent put emphasis on the proviso contained in the said Section and submitted that the Respondent was required to submit his claim for compensation within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the notice. The learned counsel for the Respondent in support of his submission, has also referred to and relied upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh-versus-The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and another reported in AIR 1961 SC 1500 . By referring paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of the said judgment, the learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the date for pronouncement of the Award is required to be communicated to the party concerned and this date is crucial and material but in the instant case, the respondent was not communicated about the date of declaration of the Award and he received intimation for the first time on 13th February, 1994 about the Award, which was declared on 11.08.1989 and therefore, in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment and looking to the facts of the present case, the point of limitation raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is not sustainable. The learned counsel for the Respondent further submitted that the learned court below has not properly appreciated and considered this point which was raised before it with regard to compensation under the heading of 'Loss of Business'. According to the learned counsel for the Respondent, this point was well taken before the court below and in this context by referring page 2 of the judgment delivered by the court below, the learned counsel for the Respondent pointed out that the plea was taken that the Respondent has suffered business loss to the tune of Rs. 53,78,556.00 and in this context, he has also referred to the findings recorded by the court below, wherein, it is observed that the Factory was started in the year 1977, wherein, about 25 to 30 persons were working. However, the court below has not awarded any amount under the heading 'Loss of Business' and therefore, he submitted that this Court may consider this aspect of the matter while dealing with the first appeal and pass appropriate order and thereby award amount under the heading 'Loss of Business' considering the provisions under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. In the present case on behalf of the appellant, seven witnesses have been examined, whereas, on behalf of the State of Bihar only one witness was examined. A.W. (1) Kanhaiya Pd. Singh, A.W. (2) Manoj Kumar Singh, A.W. (3) Ram Prit Mishra, A.W. (4) Ram Prasad Rajwar, A.W. (5) Laxman Singh and A.W. (7) Madhavendra Singh (the applicant) have stated in their respective evidences that Mouza Fatehpur and Dobari are contiguous and adjacent mouzas. They have also stated that the land acquired is valued at Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per decimal. According to them, R.B. Alloy Factory over the land in question and the said Factory was started in the year 1977, wherein 25 to 30 persons were working and the factory was producing aluminium utencils and aluminium sheets. A.W. (5) has stated that he worked as night guard from January, 1977 to 1980 in the R.B. Alloy Factory belonging to the applicant where aluminium utencils and sheets were produced. 11. It appears that the following documents produced by claimants on record were exhibited :- Ex-1-Estimate} Prepared by Shri R. K. Prasad Designer & Consulting Engineer, Hirapur, Dhanbad in respect of cost of R.B. Alloy Factory at Dobari-Dist. Dhanbad. Ex.2-Report. Ex. 11. It appears that the following documents produced by claimants on record were exhibited :- Ex-1-Estimate} Prepared by Shri R. K. Prasad Designer & Consulting Engineer, Hirapur, Dhanbad in respect of cost of R.B. Alloy Factory at Dobari-Dist. Dhanbad. Ex.2-Report. Ex. 3 to 3-A - Two maps} prepared by Shri R.K. Prasad, Designer & Consulting Engineer, Hirapur, Dhanbad. Ex. 4-Registration Certificates} issued by Directorate of industries Ex. 5- C.C. To Sale deed No. 2335} To show that land measuring dt. 14.3.85 1048 Sq. Mt. of Village Fatepur was sold for Rs.30,000/- which comes to Rs.12,480/- per decimal. Ex. 5/A -C.C. To Sale deed To show that land measuring No.296 dt. 9.1.86} 1249 Sq. ft. of village Mouza Fatepur was sold for Rs.10,000/- Ex. 5/B -C.C. To Sale deed To show that land measuring No. 3839 dt. 4.4.86} 39 Sq. ft. including structure was sold for Rs.10,000/- Ex. 6 -Survey Map of Mauza Dobari} Made and Published under the authority of Government by Superintendent of Survey, Bihar Likewise following documents produced alongwith list by the Opponent produced were exhibited. Ex. A -Attested Copy of Notification Ex. B - Copy of delivery of possession Ex. C -Rate Report Ex. D - Estimate prepared by Executive Engineer, P.W.D. On the basis of evidence on record, the learned court below observed that the aforesaid sale deeds cannot be sole barometer for determining the valuation of the land in question. Dobari Mouza is situated near village Fatehpur and Jharia and this fact finds support from the map Ext. (6). The learned court below further observed that the disputed land has got potential value because the price of the land is rising day by day and in this context referred to the rate report proved by O.W. (1) Jugal Kishore vide Exhibit C. From perusal of the rate report it appears that the Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad has not taken any sale figure of the concerned Mouza or nearby mouza for assessing the valuation of the land. It has been said in the rate report that no sale figure was available for the relevant period of mouza Dobari, so he made the valuation of the land on the basis of the produce of the land of Keshargarha village, P.S. Baghmara. It has been said in the rate report that no sale figure was available for the relevant period of mouza Dobari, so he made the valuation of the land on the basis of the produce of the land of Keshargarha village, P.S. Baghmara. In fact this method is totally wrong in assessing the valuation of the land situated at a distant and remote place within P.S. Baghmara and in no case the land of Mouza Keshargarha is similar to the land of Mouza Dobari which is adjacent to village Fatehpur within the P.S. Jharia. The Opp. Party/District Land Acquisition Officer ought to have taken the sale figure of the adjacent village of Mouza Fatehpur but he did not take trouble to obtain the sale figure of village Fatehpur and he relied on the valuation of the village Keshargarha. So the rate report does not reflect the correct valuation of the land acquired. 12. Considering the aforesaid rival submissions and on perusal of the impugned judgment and Award, dated 27th March, 1999, passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad, it appears that the said Land Acquisition case was arising out of a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad acting as Collector under the Land Acquisition Act, adjudicating the adequacy of the compensation for the land acquired. On perusal of the findings recorded by the court below, it appears that the court below has considered in detail the documentary as well as the oral evidence produced before it. On behalf of the appellant seven witnesses were examined in support of the documentary evidence which was produced before the court below. On perusal of the findings recorded by the court below, it appears that the court below has considered in detail the documentary as well as the oral evidence produced before it. On behalf of the appellant seven witnesses were examined in support of the documentary evidence which was produced before the court below. On perusal of the discussion with regard to the appreciation of evidence made by the learned court below, it appears that the evidence which was adduced before the court below was considered on the basis of scientific analysis and calculation submitted before the court below by the officers/persons those who are having expertise in the subject and the valuation and assessment, which was described before the court below was based on documentary evidence prevailing market value and the cost of factory was also assessed by the court below and the determination of assessment which was arrived at by the learned court below appears to be done in a scientific manner and therefore, this Court is of the view that the amount which was assessed by the learned court below is just and proper and intervention of this Court is not required so far as the assessment and valuation, which was determined by the court below is concerned and the same is required to be confirmed. Much stress was put by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the issue of limitation. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned court below has not considered this particular aspect though it was specifically pleaded before it. On perusal of the judgment, it appears that the issue with regard to limitation has not been properly dealt with and discussed. However, as argued by the learned counsel for the Respondent, since this point was raised in the first appeal, this Court is also empowered to deal with and decide this issue which is a question of law. I have taken note of the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard and certain dates are relevant for the determination of this issue. The most important date is date of the Award i.e. 11.08.1989. I have taken note of the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard and certain dates are relevant for the determination of this issue. The most important date is date of the Award i.e. 11.08.1989. From the record, it emerge that the notice under Section 12 was issued on 12th February, 1994 and the said notice was received by the Respondent on 13th February, 1994 and thereafter, the application was made on 24th March, 1994, which clearly indicates that the application was filed within a period of six weeks from the date of intimation/receipt of the notice under Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act. In this context, I found substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Respondent which is based on the proviso under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which provides as under : - “18. Reference to Court.- (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: Provided that every such application shall be made-- (a) If the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award; (b) in other cases within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date the Collector's award whichever period shall first expire.” 13. In support of this legal submission, the Respondent has also placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh-versus-The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and another reported in AIR 1961 SC 1500 . I have perused the said judgment. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,7 and 11 of the said judgment are relevant for the purpose of determination of the present case. I have perused the said judgment. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,7 and 11 of the said judgment are relevant for the purpose of determination of the present case. The facts and circumstances of the case, which was before the Hon'ble apex Court and the facts of the present case are almost similar and the question of law, which was dealt with and decided by the Hon'ble apex Court and the ratio laid down on this point by the Hon'ble apex Court is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and therefore, the said judgment is applicable in support of the present first appeal. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court, the issue raised by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to limitation is not sustainable and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent in this regard cannot be accepted. 14. The learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the appropriate amount under the heading 'Loss of Business', which was not awarded by the learned court below may be appropriately considered and this Court while exercising powers under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure may determine and award the reasonable amount under the heading 'Loss of Business'. On perusal of the judgment and Award passed by the court below, it appears that this point was raised before the learned court below but from the findings recorded therein, it appears that the learned court below has considered this point which was raised by the Respondent in the court below but it appears from the findings recorded by the court below that the factory was in running condition between 1977 to 1980 and thereafter, there is nothing on record to show that the said factory was in running condition and therefore, in absence of any particular figure with regard to production and the revenue generated by the factory during the said period and subsequent thereto, it is not possible for this Court to determine any amount by exercising its powers under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Moreover in the present case, the respondents have not filed any cross objections in respect of Award in question. Therefore, it would not be just and proper for this Court to pass such order in absence of any evidence on record. 15. Moreover in the present case, the respondents have not filed any cross objections in respect of Award in question. Therefore, it would not be just and proper for this Court to pass such order in absence of any evidence on record. 15. In view of the above discussion and more particularly in view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.03.1999 (Award signed on 09.04.1999), passed by Sri Devendra Prasad Singh, Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad in Land Acquisition Case No. 11 of 1995 is required to be affirmed and the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the judgment and decree dated 27.03.1999 (Award signed on 09.04.1999), passed by Sri Devendra Prasad Singh, Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad in Land Acquisition Case No. 11 of 1995 is hereby affirmed and this appeal stands dismissed, accordingly.