Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 245 (JK)

State of J&K v. Ali Mohammad Baigh

2015-05-15

ALI MOHAMMAD MAGREY

body2015
JUDGMENT : Ali Mohd. Magrey, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners - respondents in State appeal, CIA No. 211/2009, and appellants in Cross Objection No. 64/2011 -- for the review of judgment dated 24.09.2013 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir (as his lordship then was) in a bunch of clubbed appeals, with the prayer to bring them at par with the land owners of Bagi-Chandapora by awarding compensation payable to them @ Rs. 4.00 lacs per Kanal of land. The review of the judgement is sought on the grounds that the Court has under some kind of misunderstanding held that the land of Chandapora and Bagi-Chandapora were two different lands; that the Collector himself had visited the spot before passing of the final award and had treated the lands of these two villages of the same nature, potential and value and granted the same compensation in respect of the land of these two adjacent villages; that the Reference Court had without any reason or justification, relied upon the report of the Tehsildar and thereby enhanced the compensation of Rs. 2.50 lacs per kanal for the lands situated at Chandapora and Rs. 4.00 lacs per kanal for the lands situated at Bagi-Chandapora; that the lands of Chandapora and Bagi-Chandapora are one and the same lands and are possessed of the same potential and market value. 2. The respondents have filed objections to the review petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and considered the matter. 4. A perusal of the two awards relied upon by the petitioners in this review petition reveals that in respect of the land situated at village Chandapora, the Territorial Tehsildar had in his Average Sale Rate Statement of the land in 1997, furnished to the Collector, given the average sale rate at Rs. 16,222/- per Kanal and conveyed that market value in the locality per Kanal was Rs. 2.50 lacs around the said period. The Collector seemed to have ignored the report of the Tehsildar and instead, in terms of award dated 01.06.1999, awarded the following rates in respect of the three categories of lands in the village: i. Abi-Bagh Rs. 1.50 lacs per Kanal ii. Abi-Awal Rs. 1.40 lacs per Kanal iii. Gairmumkin Rs. 1.30 lacs per Kanal 5. The Collector seemed to have ignored the report of the Tehsildar and instead, in terms of award dated 01.06.1999, awarded the following rates in respect of the three categories of lands in the village: i. Abi-Bagh Rs. 1.50 lacs per Kanal ii. Abi-Awal Rs. 1.40 lacs per Kanal iii. Gairmumkin Rs. 1.30 lacs per Kanal 5. In respect of the land situated at village Bagi - Chandapora, the Territorial Tehsildar in his Average Sale Rate Statement of the land in 1997, furnished to the Collector, had given the average sale rate at Rs. 46000/- per Kanal and conveyed that market value in the locality per Kanal was Rs. 4.00 lacs around the said period. However, the Collector in its award dated 01.06.1999, again ignoring the report of the Tehsildar, made the award on the same rates as had been awarded by him in respect of the land situated at village Bagi - Chandapora. 6. From the order of the Reference Court dated 31.10.2008 it is revealed that the petitioners herein had sought reference in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on the ground that the compensation awarded was less than the market value of the land acquired which they had claimed to be Rs. 5.00 lacs, but failed to establish. The land acquired was the one situated at village Chandapora. It was not their case before the Reference Court that the lands situated at the two places -- at Bagi Chandapora and Chandapora--were identical and, therefore, could not be treated differently for purposes of award of compensation. The Reference Court, however, found that the Collector had unjustifiably ignored the report of the Territorial Tehsildar, called for by the Collector himself, according to which the market rate of per kanal land at village Chandapora around the year 1997 was Rs. 2.50 lacs. The Reference Court, accordingly, ordered the increase of rate of compensation per kanal land situated at Chandapora commensurate with, and at par with the market value thereof, as had been reported by the Tehsildar, i.e. from Rs. 1.50 lacs to Rs. 2.50 lacs. 7. 2.50 lacs. The Reference Court, accordingly, ordered the increase of rate of compensation per kanal land situated at Chandapora commensurate with, and at par with the market value thereof, as had been reported by the Tehsildar, i.e. from Rs. 1.50 lacs to Rs. 2.50 lacs. 7. The fundamental contention of the petitioners herein is that the two lands - one situated at Bagi-Chandapora and the other at Chandapora-could not be treated differently, more particularly so when the Collector had made one and the same observations about the nature, location and potential of the two lands in his awards after having visited the two spots. 8. The petitioners are, thus, seeking to introduce and set up a new case which would not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. 9. Even otherwise, determination of the question whether the lands situated at Bagi-Chandapora and Chandapora are identical and one and the same would require oral evidence and a long discussion and reasoning. Therefore, such a contention would not come within the definition of an error apparent on the face of the record. Apart from that, the contention that the Collector had awarded one and the same rate of compensation in respect of the three classifications of lands at the two places, therefore, the lands of the two villages had been treated identical by the Collector is inconsequential in view of the clear and unambiguous report of the Territorial Tehsildar. 10. The judgments supplied by the learned counsel are not applicable to the facts and circumstances attendant to this case. The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed.