( 1 ) FOR the establishment of a Livestock Research Station at Haringhatta a large number of plots Lad been compulsorily acquired. Notification and Declaration were published in October and November, 1945. Separate Land Acquisition Cases were started for settling the market value of the lands acquired as also the claims by diverse parties for apportionment.

( 2 ) THESE four appeals arise out of as many References made by the landlord for increased valuation and also questioning the Collector's direction for apportionment. The same landlord is the appellant in each of the cases but the Respondents are other claimants as holders of subordinate interests and they are different ones.

( 3 ) THESE appeals were heard one after another. The transactions on which the learned Judge relies upon are the same in all these cases. The nature of the other evidence adduced is of the same type and character. In view of the order WP intend to pass, this order will govern all of them.

( 4 ) THE special facts relating to the claim for apportionment will be dealt with separately under each appeal.

( 5 ) WE first proceed to deal with the common features in all the four appeals.

( 6 ) IN all these cases lands under acquisition are described as garden lands. The Land Acquisition Collector fixed Rs. 180/- per acre as the market value for these lands. He stated that such "market value had been determined from Registered sale-memos. " Compensation was apportioned as "between the proprietor and the intermediaries on the basis of the rent received by the former and the tenant was awarded the balance.

( 7 ) AGAINST such awards the landlord filed References under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act.

( 8 ) ALTHOUGH the normal and proper procedure is that the Reference relating to the valuation is to be taken up separately from the Reference about apportionment, in the present batch the learned Judge and the parties lumped both together. By the same order the Court dealt with both the matters. The Government is neither interested nor is a proper party in an apportionment reference or appeal therefrom -- but only the contesting claimants are. It is only in the valuation Reference that the Government is a necessary party.

( 9 ) IN view of the circumstances referred to above in the References as also in the Appeals before us the Government Pleader and the Advocates for the different sets of claimants were heard separately.

( 10 ) THE learned Land Acquisition Judge affirmed the award and the apportionment as made by the Collector.

( 11 ) THE proprietor is the appellant in all the appeals now before us.

( 12 ) WE shall take up the question of valuation first

( 13 ) ON behalf of the appellant the common arguments in all the appeals are that the teamed Judge has relied upon copies of the same two sale deeds which had not been properly admitted. Secondly, even if the said two deeds be taken into consideration, they are not of any assistance in determining the market-value of the lands in dispute which are garden lands whereas the lands which were the subject-matter of the two transactions were 'nal' lands. In our view both the contentions must prevail.

( 14 ) WE shall take up the second question first on the footing that the documents which had been produced were admissible in evidence or had been properly marked. On a scrutiny of the two documents, it appears that the subject-matter of the two kobalas would not be of much assistance in assessing the proper market-value of the garden lauds. The sale deeds are in respect of 'nal' lands and/or some homestead plots. There is no evidence to correlate the value of the garden and 'nal' lands.

( 15 ) IT is contended on behalf of the -State that the onus was on the claimant to prove that the rate fixed, by the Collector was not a proper one. The evidence as adduced by the claimant was not only meagre but unreliable as being unsupported by documentary evidence. This argument is not available to the State in the speci

Click Here to Read the rest of this document