The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the State Land Acquisition Act, 1990, particularly in determining the market value of acquired land and the admissibility of judgments in land acquisition cases as evidence for compensation.

Janak Raj Kotwal, J.;—

1. This is a Civil 1st appeal. Land measuring 226 kanals 6 marlas situate at Nunwanen Pahalgam, Distt. Anantnag has been acquired by the Government for a public purpose, namely, development of Phalgam out of which land measuring 15 kanals 2 marlas comprised in Khasra No. 188/38 280/36, 185/36 belonged to the respondent herein.

2. Notification under Section 4 of the State Land Acquisition Act, 1990 (for short the Act) was issued vide No. 245-50/LA dated 13.08.1979 and & 230-44/LA dated 11.09.1980. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made vide Revenue Department s. No. RV-LA/195-97 dated 26.11.1980 and Rev/LAK/154/79 dated 17.04.1980. Notification under Section 9 and 9A of the Act was issued vide No. 424-44/LA dated 26.04.1980. Award was made by the Collector Land Acquisition, Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Anantnag on 15.05.1982. Compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 5,000/per kanal besides 15% solatium (Jabrana). Respondent received the compensation under protest. On respondents application alleging that the compensation awarded was nominal, the Collector made reference under section 18 of the Act to the court of learned District Judge, Anantnag.

3. Appellant-State of Jammu and Kashmir resisted the reference. Learned District Judge after recording evidence and hearing both sides, disposed of the reference vide Judgment dated 30.08.2003 holding that the prevalent market rate in the area at the time of the acquisition of the respondents land was 2.40 lac to 2.98 lac rupees per kanal and compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,40,000/per kanal amounting to Rs. 36,24,000/besides 15% solatium was payable to the respondent. Learned District Judge, therefore, passed decree for payment of Rs. 41,67,600/as compensation with 6% interest per annum in favour of the respondent.

4. Appellant-State through the Collector has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the court of learned District Judge, Anantnag in this appeal. Intending department, the Pahalgam Development Authority, on its application has been impleaded as appellant at a later stage.

5. The judgment and decree have been assailed on the grounds that the determination of market value of the land by the learned District Judge is based upon no evidence. The learned Judge has passed the Award on the material, which is wholly and totally extraneous and foreign to the proceedings and merit of the reference. It is contended that the learned District Judge has allowed herself to fall into grave error by placing reliance on Government Order for compensation issued by the appellant. It is contended that the learned District Judge did not take into consideration the evidence produced by the appellant/Collector, which clearly indicated that the compensation had been awarded by the Collector after taking into consideration all the relevant factors including the site, value and potential of the land and some transactions effected by various persons in the vicinity. It is contended that learned District Judge ignored the contention of the appellant that area in which the respondents land was situate was falling within the zone where no construction was permissible because of blanket ban imposed by the Government so price of the petitioners land falling in that area was not comparable to the instances on which reliance was placed by the respondent. It is pointed out that relevant date for determination of the compensation was November, 1980 when Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued but learned District Judge fell into error by taking into consideration a Government Order No. 482 of 1981 dated 31.07.1981. It is also contended that the learned District Judge has erred in determining the market value as required under Section 23 of the Act. One of the grounds of challenge is that the application for reverence under section 18 of the Act was time barred so reverence was not maintainable.

6. The final award as regards the entire land including the land ow

Click Here to Read the rest of this document