Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 575 (RAJ)

Riico Ltd. v. Subhash Chand

2013-03-18

BELA M.TRIVEDI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-company, under Section 54 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenging the award dated 07.02.1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference court') in Reference Case No. 10/1982, whereby the Reference court has awarded the compensation to the respondents-claimants at the rate of Rs. 18,000/- per bigha for the lands acquired by the respondent No. 3 the State of Rajasthan under the provisions contained in the Act. 2. In the instant case, it appears that the State of Rajasthan, at the recommendations made by the appellant-company, had issued the notification dated 21.05.1981 under Section 4 of the Act declaring its intention to acquire the lands including the part of khasra No. 166, belonging to the respondent No. 1. Subsequently, the notification under Section 6 of the Act was also issued by the respondent- State and after following procedure under the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer, Alwar vide the award dated 17.08.1981 awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 6500/- per bigha. Being dissatisfied with the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondent No. 1 made an application seeking reference under Section 18, of the Act to the Civil Court. Accordingly the Land Acquisition Officer, Alwar made a reference, which was registered as the Reference Case No. 10/1982. The Reference court decided the said Reference on 19.07.1989, awarding the compensation at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per bigha with interest and solatium as per the provisions contained in the Act. Being aggrieved by the said award, the respondent No. 1 had filed the appeal being No. 964/1996 seeking enhancement of the said amount of compensation awarded by the Reference court, and the appellant had also filed the cross objections against the said award passed by the Reference court. Similar Appeals and corss objections were also filed against the similar awards passed by the Reference court. The High Court after considering the said appeals and the cross-objections, vide the common order dated 07.08.1997, set aside the awards made by the reference court on 19.07.1989 and remanded the matters to the Reference court for deciding them afresh after affording an opportunity to the parties to lead the evidence. The High Court after considering the said appeals and the cross-objections, vide the common order dated 07.08.1997, set aside the awards made by the reference court on 19.07.1989 and remanded the matters to the Reference court for deciding them afresh after affording an opportunity to the parties to lead the evidence. The Reference court, thereafter considering the evidence on record, passed the award dated 07.02.1998 enhancing the compensation to the tune of Rs. 18,000/- per bigha with interest and solatium as mentioned therein. Being aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant. Similar Appeals have also been filed by the other claimants-appellants, registered as the SBCMA Nos.814/1998 and 816/1998. The said Appeals are also being disposed of by separate orders. 3. Mr. A.K. Sharma, Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. V.K. Sharma, for the appellant has submitted that though the Reference court was directed to grant opportunity to the appellant to lead the evidence, the concerned officers of the appellant could not remain present before the Reference court due to their engagement in the election duty. According to Mr. Sharma, the award has been made by the Reference court on extraneous consideration and that too on a very higher side. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 has drawn the attention of the Court to the documents on record including the order dated 01.07.1997 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 147 of 1996, Nirmala Devi & Another v. RIICO Ltd. & Ors. wherein the High Court in respect of other lands under the said notification under Section 4 of the Act had enhanced the compensation from Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 18,000/- per bigha. According to him, the said order, having not been challenged by the appellant before the higher forum, had attained the finality, and the Reference court has also relied upon the said order passed by the High Court, while awarding the compensation at the rate of Rs. 18,000/- per bigha. 4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the documents on record, it appears that though initially the appeal was preferred by the appellant on various grounds, now the dispute moves in a very narrow compass. 18,000/- per bigha. 4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the documents on record, it appears that though initially the appeal was preferred by the appellant on various grounds, now the dispute moves in a very narrow compass. It appears that though the High Court, while remanding the case, had granted the opportunity to both the parties to lead the evidence, the appellant had not led any evidence before the Reference court. Mr. Devendra Raghav, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant has rightly drawn the attention of this Court to the order passed by this Court in case of Nirmala Devi (supra), whose land was also sought to be acquired by the State of Rajasthan along with the land of the respondent No. 1 and in the appeal preferred by her, being Appeal No. 147/1996, the High Court had awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 18,000/- per bigha. The Reference court, while considering the other evidences on record, had also taken into consideration the said order passed by the High Court in Nirmala Devi's case. Mr. Sharma, Senior Counsel has not been able to distinguish the case of the respondent No. 1 from the case of Nirmala Devi (supra). The order passed by this Court in the case of Nirmala Devi (supra) having attained finality and the Reference court having relied upon the said order, this Court does not find any error in the impugned award passed by the Reference court, awarding the compensation at the rate of 18,000/- per bigha. 5. There being no illegality and perversity pointed out in the impugned award passed by the Reference court, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. In view of the above, the appeal, being devoid of merits, is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******