Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 741 (PAT)

State of Bihar v. Animesh Nag

2014-07-04

MUNGESHWAR SAHOO

body2014
Mungeshwar Sahoo, J. – The State of Bihar has challenged the award dated 12.08.1976 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Judge-I, Patna in L.A. Case No.369 of 1973. 2. The house/constructed portion of the land of the claimant was acquired. The Land Acquisition Judge awarded Rs.38,268.50 only. The State of Bihar had awarded Rs.5,209/-. 3. This First Appeal, filed by the State of Bihar challenging the award passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, has already been dismissed on 29.10.2007 for non-compliance of peremptory order dated 05.09.2007. It may be mentioned here that the cross objection was filed by the claimant-respondent, which was admitted. Therefore, on dismissal of the First Appeal for default the cross objection was directed to be listed for final hearing, as such, the cross objection has been listed for hearing. 4. The claimant-respondent has filed the cross objection taking only ground to the effect that the Land Acquisition Judge while considering the value of the building of the claimant, accepted the valuation report of the Engineer by which value was fixed at Rs.76,537/-. However after accepting the valuation report of the Engineer, the Land Acquisition Judge without assigning any reason abruptly held that 50% be awarded to the claimant i.e. Rs.38,268.50, which is wrong. 5. At the time of hearing of this cross objection, the learned counsel Mr. Gopal Jee submitted that earlier the First Appeals were being heard by Division Bench. Out of many land acquisition cases decided by this common impugned judgment, some of the claimants filed first appeals before the High Court. One claimant Smt. Urmila Devi filed First Appeal No.807 of 1976, which was heard by Division Bench of this Court and was disposed of by judgment dated 07.08.1981 holding that “it is not the case of the State that the valuation given by the engineer is exaggerated valuation. We, therefore, hold that the Land Acquisition Judge has erred in deducting 50% of the valuation given by the engineer as the deduction is not supported by any evidence on record. Hence, we accept the evidence of the engineer as well as his report (Ext.3) and accordingly, the appeal was allowed. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the claimant-respondent annexing the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. 6. Learned G.A. 10 appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar did not dispute this fact. 7. Hence, we accept the evidence of the engineer as well as his report (Ext.3) and accordingly, the appeal was allowed. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the claimant-respondent annexing the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. 6. Learned G.A. 10 appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar did not dispute this fact. 7. In view of the above factual position, it is clear that many land acquisition reference cases were decided by this common judgment. Smt. Urmila Devi, one of the claimants, filed First Appeal No.807 of 1976. From perusal of the Division Bench judgment, it appears that the Division Bench has accepted the report of the engineer. It may be mentioned here that the engineer had given the report with respect to all the houses involved in the land acquisition reference cases. In all the above reference cases the Land Acquisition Judge accepted the report but awarded only 50% without any reason. Therefore, the Division Bench has accepted the report of the engineer and set aside the award of the Land Acquisition Judge holding that without there being any case of exaggerated valuation by the engineer pleaded by the State of Bihar and without rhyme and reason the Land Acquisition Judge has wrongly reduced the valuation. 8. Now, therefore, this matter regarding valuation has already been decided by the Division Bench and since the Division Bench has decided the matter, it is not necessary for this Court to differ with the decision. Accordingly, I find that the Land Acquisition Judge has wrongly reduced the valuation of the engineer without any reason although it is not the case of the State of Bihar that the engineer gave exaggerated valuation in the report. 9. In the result, this cross objection is allowed. The valuation given by the engineer in his report valuing the building of the claimant at Rs.76,537/- is accepted and held that the claimant is entitled to the said amount. 10. Accordingly, the valuation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Judge-I, Patna in the impugned judgment and award is modified. There shall be no order as to cost.