The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, based on the consideration of sale deeds, determination of market value, and the award of additional compensation, solatium, and interest.

JUDGMENT :

1. This First Appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the judgment dated 24.08.2006 and the award dated 21.09.2006 passed by learned Subordinate Judge-II, Daltonganj, Palamau in Land Acquisition Case No. 14 of 1989 whereby and whereunder the claimants/appellants are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded against the acquired land. The original appellant /claimant namely, Pramina Devi has been substituted in this First Appeal by her legal heirs, the present appellants.

2. Admittedly the property involved in this case was acquired by a notification dated 01.10.1980 issued under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The matter regarding compensation for the acquired land was referred to the learned court below under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide order dated 05.01.1989 and accordingly, Land Acquisition Case No. 14/1989 was instituted.

3. Earlier Vide judgment dated 28.03.2019, this court had set aside the impugned judgment and award to the extent that the compensation to be assessed and paid on the basis of Sale Deed dated 12.02.1979 (Exhibit-2/a) and not on the basis of Sale Deed dated 29.12.1976 (Exhibit-2/c) as directed by the impugned judgment. This Court had also held that the claimant would be entitled to payment of solatium, additional compensation as well as interest under the Act and had directed the office to prepare decree accordingly.

4. The appellants had produced five witnesses and inter-alia four sale deeds before the learned court below i.e. Sale Deed No. 112 dated 19.01.1978 (Exhibit-2), Sale Deed No. 283 dated 12.02.1979 (Exhibit-2/a), Sale Deed No. 2907 dated 30.11.1977 (Exhibit-2/b) and Sale Deed No. 9601 dated 29.12.1976 (Exhibit-2/c).

5. Sale Deed No. 9601 dated 29.12.1976 (Exhibit-2/c) was the basis on which the compensation was assessed by the learned court below. The rate mentioned in Sale Deed No. 9601 dated 29.12.1976 (Exhibit-2/c) was much below as compared to the rate mentioned in other deeds.

6. The following findings were recorded in the earlier judgment passed by this Court: -

a. That the appellant has not raised any argument in connection with other points which are involved in this case such as valuation of the house, well and trees as claimed by them as there was no sufficient evidence before the court below for the purposes of holding that aforesaid house, well and trees were existing on the property.

b. The learned court below could not have refused to consider the sale deeds dated 19.01.1978 and 12.02.1979 solely on the ground that same was within three years prior to the date of notification.

c. So far as sale deed dated 29.12.1976 is concerned, same was beyond three years from the date of notification. There is no dispute that value of the land to be assessed has to relate to the value of land as it existed on the date of notification.

d. In this view of the matter, sale deeds which were dated 19.01.1978 and 12.02.1979 were more proximate to the date of notification under Section 4 i.e. 01.10.1980 and there is no other material on record to discard these sale deeds for the purpose of ascertaining the market value of the property on the date of notification. …………...

e. So far as sale deed dated 30.11.1977 is concerned, the learned court below has assigned reasons for not considering this deed by holding that the property involved in deed dated 30.11.1977 was closer to the village. ……………….

f. So far as sale deed dated 19.01.1978 is concerned, as rightly pointed out by the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that from the boundary, which has been mentioned in the sale deed itself, this property was located by the side of the road and this Court finds that one of the plus factors for the purpose of valuation as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is proximity to a road. In the instant case, there is no evi