Back
2007 Supreme(Pat) 1739
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.K.Katriar, J.
Indrajit Narain Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Appeal from the Original Decree No. 32 of 1985 ;
Decided On : NOVEMBER 7, 2007
Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 54-Acquisition of land for purpose of Drainage Scheme-Appeal against the order offering the award of Land Acquisition Officer-Section 23 payment of compensation-Appellant is entitled to get Rs. 200/- per dhur as market value of the acquired land on the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act-Appellant is entitled to an amount equivalent to 12 per centum per annum on the market value of the land from the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land whichever is earlier-The applicant would also be entitled to further amount of compensation to the extent of 30% of the amount of compensation in consideration of compulsory nature of acquisition-The applicant is entitled to 5% of the amount of compensation towards injury caused by reason of severance of the holdings-He is also entitled to statutory interest as per amended provisions of Sections 28 and 34 of the Act on the amount of compensation so determined-Provisions of Land Ceiling Act and the Bihar Amendment are inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case-Impugned judgment and decree set aside.
(Paras 5, 6, 9, 13, 14, 17 and 18)
2004(2) PLJR (SC) 1, 2007(4) PLJR (SC) 120-Deff.
1989 PLJR 628, 1990 BBCJ 652-Relied upon.
S.K.Katriar, J.
1. The applicant (appellant herein) has preferred this appeal under Sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is directed against the judgment dated 3.9.1984, and the consequent decree, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Motihari, in Land Acquisition Case No. 1 of 1982, whereby he has in substance affirmed the award of the learned Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Collector of the District. We shall go by the description of the parties before the court below.
2. The State of Bihar issued notification under Sec. 4 of the Act. Ultimately a total of 1.19 acres of land of Khesra Nos. 1297, 1263 and 1217 under khata nos. 351, 161 and 260, respectively, belonging to the applicant and situate in village Bahadurpur, P.S. Gobindganj, No. 101, District East Champaran, was acquired by the State of Bihar under the Act for the purpose of Tilaway Drainage Scheme. The applicant was deprived of possession of the lands in question on 24.3.1981, the date of award of the learned Land Acquisition Officer. Aggrieved by the award, the applicant took steps under Sec. 18 of the Act leading to Reference Case No. 1 of 1982, which has been disposed of by the impugned judgment. The learned trial court framed the following issues for adjudication:
(i) Whether the reference is barred under proviso (a) to sub-section (2) of Sec. 18 of the Act?
(ii) What would be the proper and reasonable compensation for the acquisition?
3. The applicant led evidence in support of his case and are enumerated hereinbelow:
(i) Exhibit-1 is a deed of absolute sale dated 9.2.1980, showing sale of an adjoining land.
(ii) Exhibit-1/a is a deed of absolute sale dated 21.1.1980 showing sale of adjoining lands.
(iii) Exhibit-2 is map of the village showing that the lands sought to be acquired and prepared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 2, Gandak Yojana, Motihari.
(iv) Exhibit-3 are applications by different persons including that of the applicant under Section-9 of the Act.
(v) Exhibit-4 is the order-sheet of Land Ceiling Case No. 94 of 1973-74.
(vi) A.W. 1 is the applicant himself.
(vii) A.W. 2 is Khedu Mistry and has proved Exhibits-1 and 1/a.
The respondent State of Bihar has not led evidence in support of its case and has entirely relied on the evidence of the applicant.
4 The first issue need not detain us because the learned Government Counsel has submitted that the reference was not barred by limitation. The issue is accordingly decided in favour of the applicant.
5. In so far as the second issue is concerned, learned counsel for the applicant rightly submits that the learned trial court has taken into account an irrelevant aspect of the matter in determining the compensation. He rightly submits that Sec. 23 of the Act sets out the factors to be considered in determining compensation, the first clause of which lays down to the effect that the market-value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under sec. 4, sub-section (1). The notification under sec. 4(1) was issued on 8.12.1980. Exhibit-1 is the original deed of absolute sale executed by Indrajit Narain Singh (the- applicant), in favour of one Kapildeo Rout, whereby he alienated Khesra No. 1292, covering an area of 4 dhurs, appertaining to khata no. 938, at village Bahadurpur and is situate close by. The same was executed on 9.2.1980, and was registered on 10.3.1980, for a total consideration money of Rs. 800/-. Exhibit-1/a is another registered deed of absolute sale executed by the applicant himself in favour of Ram Ayodhya Sharma, whereby he alienated portions of plot nos. 1171 and 1217, both appertaining to khata no. 1040, covering 5 dhurs, for a total consideration money of Rs. 1,000/-. The same was executed on 21.1.1980, and was registered on 7.2.1980. It is manifest on a perusal of these two documents that the same are lands adjoining the acquired lands, and alienated for a consideration money of Rs. 200/- per dhur.
