Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 581 (PAT)

State of Bihar v. Mehdi Hasan

2012-04-05

MUNGESHWAR SAHOO

body2012
Mungeshwar Sahoo, J. – The State of Bihar has filed this appeal against the Judgment and Award dated 27.09.1994 passed by Sri J.P. Singh, the learned Subordinate Judge-cum-Land Acquisition Judge, Muzzafarpur in land acquisition case No.58 of 1981. 2. It appears that 1.80 acres of land belonging to the applicant in village Rohua Apuch forming portion of R.S. plot No. 2633, 2486, 2539 and 2476 was acquired by the State of Bihar for the purpose of North Bihar Industries Development. Notification under Section 4 was issued on 12.4.1978 and possession was taken on 19.6.1978. Award No.16 dated 12.5.1979 for a sum of Rs.24,140.75/- was prepared and paid to the applicant in total. 3. The applicant received the above amount with protest and filed application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act claiming the price of the land at the rate of 17,000/- per acres. According to the claimant, the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the rate at Rs.11,150/- per acre which is meager amount. The lands acquired was situated at a distance of only few chains from the eastern compound wall IDTL campus, Narayanpur railway station, braudgauge line. At the time of acquisition, there were various industrial units, such as Biscuit factory, poultry farm, home pipe factory and all the lands acquired was fit for the purpose of buildings. The application was referred by the land acquisition Officer to the land Acquisition Judge. 4. The appellant-State of Bihar did not file any objection. 5. After trial, the Land Acquisition Judge by the impugned Judgment and Award fixed the valuation of the land at the rate of Rs.500/- per decimal and granted other benefits under the statute to the applicant. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the rate of land fixed by the Land Acquisition Judge is arbitrary and exorbitant. The learned counsel submitted that at the time of acquisition, the rate claimed by the applicant was not so high but the learned Court below considering the inadmissible documentary evidences fixed the rate so high, therefore, the impugned Judgment and Award are liable to be set aside. 7. The learned counsel submitted that at the time of acquisition, the rate claimed by the applicant was not so high but the learned Court below considering the inadmissible documentary evidences fixed the rate so high, therefore, the impugned Judgment and Award are liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the learned Court below in the impugned Judgment, considered various sale deeds of the land of the neighboring village and also the Judgment passed earlier in other land acquisition cases wherein the lands were acquired for the same purpose by the State of Bihar and then recorded a finding and fixed the prevalent market value of the land. Therefore, the impugned Judgment and Award cannot be set aside. According to the learned counsel, the evidences produced by the applicant-respondent was in fact ex-parte and there was only one witness on behalf of the State of Bihar. 8. In view of the above contentions of the parties, the points arises for consideration is as to whether the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Judge is proper and just compensation and whether the impugned Judgment and Award are sustainable in the eye of law? 9. It appears that the claimant-respondent has adduced oral evidences as well as documentary evidences. A.W.1 to 5 examined on behalf of applicant have stated that at the time of acquisition, the lands were fit for construction of building and the prevalent market value was Rs.70,000/- (per acres). Although, no objection was filed by the State of Bihar, one witness has been examined, namely, Shyam Shanker Shahi who has stated that the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is sufficient. However, it appears that he never took part in the land acquisition proceeding nor he ever visited the lands acquisition as has been admitted by him in the cross objection. Moreover, on the basis of oral evidences only the prevalent market value of the land cannot be determined. 10. The claimants have filed Ext.1 series which are sale deeds. Out of these sale deeds Ext.1 and 1/A which are dated 17.9.1979 and 21.8.1979, therefore, these sale deeds are after acquisition of the land. Moreover, on the basis of oral evidences only the prevalent market value of the land cannot be determined. 10. The claimants have filed Ext.1 series which are sale deeds. Out of these sale deeds Ext.1 and 1/A which are dated 17.9.1979 and 21.8.1979, therefore, these sale deeds are after acquisition of the land. Ext.1/B is dated 16.12.1977 by which 6 decimals land of neighboring village was sold for Rs.3000/-, Ext.1/C is dated 15.12.77 by which 7 decimal land was sold for Rs.3,500/-, Ext.1/D is sale deed dated 13.12.1977 whereby 5 decimal of land was sold for 2,900/-. On calculation the rate of land comes to about either Rs.500/- or Rs.600/- per decimal. 11. The appellant have also produced the Judgments passed by the Court below in land acquisition cases No.72 of 1980, 83 of 1980 and 185 of 1981. It appears that the lands in those cases were acquired through the same notification and the Court fixed the rate at Rs.500/- per decimal in two cases and in land acquisition case No.185 of 1981, the rate was fixed at Rs.800/- per decimal. 12. From perusal of the impugned Judgment, it appears that the learned Court below relied upon all these documentary evidences, i.e., the relevant sale deeds and the Judgment of the Court regarding the lands acquired for the same purpose by the same notification. In my opinion, these are the best evidences for fixation on market rate of the land acquired at the relevant time because admittedly, no sale instances of the land of the village in question is available. 13. In view of my above consideration, I find that the learned Court below has rightly fixed the rate of the land and awarded the compensation. Accordingly, the finding of the Court below is just and proper as such it is confirmed. 14. In the result, this First Appeal is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to cost.