The compensation awarded for land acquisition must take into account the market value of the land, its commercial utility, and the factors stipulated in Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.06.2016 passed by the Principal District Judge, Anantnag (for short “Reference Court”) in a reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act (for short “Act”).

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through the impugned judgment as also trial court record and considered the matter.

3. Perusal of the file reveals that the department of Urban Local Bodies in the year 2004 placed a formal indent for acquisition of land measuring 04 Kanals and 16 Marlas and 04 Sirsai under Survey Nos.504, 505, 506 at village Kasba Dooru, Anantnag, before the Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag, who has notified the same under Section 4 of the Act. The case was recommended for issuance of declaration and accordingly notices under Section 9 and 9-A of the Act was issued on 19.11.2005 for seeking objections from the interested persons. The Collector passed the Final Award on 22.02.2007. The compensation was fixed to the tune of Rs.26,56,418/- for the land acquired for the public purposes i.e. Rs.18,750/- per Marla. The Appellant-Department deposited the whole amount with the Collector Land Acquisition for disbursement amongst the landowners. Some of the landowners accepted the award and received the compensation. However, the respondents herein submitted an application for making reference of the matter under Section 18 of the Act. The Collector referred the matter to the Reference Court on 29.12.2007, who admitted the reference and proceedings were initiated in ex parte against the Appellant herein, in view of the order dated 24.09.2009 and finally passed a judgment on 20.06.2016, enhancing compensation from Rs.18,750/- per Marla to Rs.40,000/- per Marla and in addition to this 15% of Jabirana @ 6% interest on the awarded amount from the date of issuance of notice under Section 4 of the Act along with an amount of Rs. 25,000/- as litigation charges has also been directed by the Reference Court.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment has been passed by the Court below in ex parte without there being any proper service upon the appellant herein. The matter was referred to the Reference Court on 29.12.2007 and till final judgment dated 20.06.2016, more than 8 years, has lapsed and even the respondents in between have produced different documents and the Reference Court without seeking objections from the appellant, has accepted the same. The compensation has been increased from Rs.18,750/- per Marla to Rs.40,000/- per Marla, which is totally bad in law and against the mandate of Section 23 of the Act as it provides that the Court, before enhancing compensation, has to find out what was the market value of the land at the time of publication of the declaration relating to Section 6. The respondents did not produce any document showing the market value, however, they produced some sale deeds before the Reference Court which are not sufficient for enhancing the compensation. It is also averred that respondents have also produced some witnesses’ along with documents which are either their relatives or neighbours who have willfully and deliberately tried to support their claim and the Reference Court has not bothered to cross-examine the said witnesses to establish the correct facts. It is stated that Collector after receiving the report regarding the market value of the land at the relevant point of time from the Tehsidar concerned and thereafter on the basis of said report, passed the award. He would also contend that the reason given by the Reference Court for enhancing the compensation does not coincide with the mandate of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act and the reference was just a suit under law, therefore, the Reference Court was under a legal obligation to hold a detailed enquiry into the matter by providing equal chance of hearing and production of documents.

5. As is evident from perusal of the file, the Trial