IMPORTANT POINT
When lands are more or less situated nearby, are identical and similar and acquired for same purpose; land owners cannot be discriminated in compensation.

JUDGMENT :

R. Banumathi, J.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 24.09.2013 and 15.05.2015 passed by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar dismissing CIA No.211 of 2009 along with Cross Appeal No.64 of 2011 and Review Petition Civil No. 07 of 2013 affirming the compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- per Kanal awarded to the appellants by the Reference Court.

3. Brief facts which led to filing of these appeals are as follows: Notification dated 16.06.1997 was issued by the Collector, Lakes and Waterways Development Authority (LAWDA), Srinagar vide No.C-LDA/452-64, under Section 4(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of land measuring 505 Kanal 06 Marlas situated at Chandapora, Tehsil and District Srinagar, for the construction and development of housing colony for the resettlement of dislocated families of the Dal dwellers. On 01.06.1999, a Final Award was passed by the Collector, LAWDA, Srinagar under the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act vide No. G-LDA 293-98 in respect of land measuring 505 Kanal 06 Marlas situated at Chandapora, Tehsil and District Srinagar. The Land Acquisition Officer assessed the compensation amount payable to the applicants/estate holders at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per Kanal Abi-Bagh, Rs.1,40,000/-per Kanal for Abi-Awal and Rs.1,30,000/- for Gair-Mumkin. On 01.06.1999, Collector passed the Final Award fixing compensation rates: (i) Abi-Bagh irrigated Orchard land (Rs.1.50 lacs per Kanal); (ii) Abi-Awal agricultural land (Rs.1.40 lacs per Kanal); and (iii) Gair-Mumkin Barren land (Rs.1.30 lacs per Kanal).

4. Being aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Collector, LAWDA, Srinagar, the appellants sought reference to the District Judge/Reference Court to establish their claims for enhanced compensation. The Reference Court vide judgment dated 31.10.2008 held that the appellants are entitled to get compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- per Kanal and also awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per Kanal on account of fencing.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Reference Court, State filed appeal CIA No.211 of 2009. Claimants have filed Cross Appeal bearing No.64 of 2011, seeking enhancement of compensation to Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanal. The High Court dismissed the State’s appeal. The Cross Appeal filed by the appellants was also dismissed by the High Court holding that the appellants have not led any evidence which could have been the basis for enhancing compensation to Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanal as has been done in other cases. The review petition filed by the appellants also came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of their Cross Appeal and the review, the appellants have filed these appeals.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the case of Reference No.5 of 2002 titled Shamim Ahmed Dar and Ors. vs. Collector, LAWDA, the Reference Court granted compensation at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanal for the acquired land situated in the same village Chandapora where the acquired land of the appellants was also situated and while so the Reference Court erred in not granting the same rate of compensation, that is at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanal to the appellants. Learned counsel further contended that Reference Court was not right in discriminating the appellants by granting compensation to them only at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per Kanal while in the case of adjacent land owners compensation has been fixed at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanal.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent–State submitted that the appellants have failed to adduce evidence to justify their claim qua compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- granted to the land owners. On the contrary, it was submitted that the land owners in Reference No.5 whose compensation has been enhanced to Rs.