The appeal for compensation enhancement was dismissed due to lack of evidence from appellants; court emphasized the necessity of providing proof for claimed valuation.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. This first appeal has been filed under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 against the Judgement dated 15.06.2023 (Decree dated 28.06.2023) passed by learned Principal District & Sessions Judge-cum-Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Dumka in Land Acquisition Case No.24 of 2020, arising out of the reference made by District Land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar vide Letter dated 18.02.2020 in connection with Land Acquisition Case No.37 of 2017-2018 whereby the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Dumka, has refused to interfere with Award No.13 wherein the appellants were claiming enhancement of the compensation in connection with the structure on the acquired land.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that two awards were prepared, one was Award No.4 for the land in connection with which the appellants have no grievance and the other was Award No.13 in connection with the building on the land.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that issue no.(i) as to “whether the land and structure acquired by the respondents exist in commercial area of Deoghar” has been decided in favour of the appellants inasmuch as it has been held that the land and structure acquired by the respondents exist in urban residential market area/commercial area, but the learned court has refused to enhance the value of the structure standing thereon. He submitted that the property consisted of residential-cum-shop building; in the front portion, there was shop having a commercial connection of electricity and at the back, there was a residential house. The learned counsel submitted that since the property was in the commercial area, therefore, the valuation of the building should also have been taken in terms of the commercial, and therefore, the award in connection with the Award No.13 calls for interference and the amount of compensation be enhanced.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the prayer, submitted that as per the materials placed on record, every aspect of the building has been taken into consideration. The building was not purely commercial, rather only a portion of which was used as shop. The appellants did not place on record any material for appreciation of the learned court in order to enhance the compensation. He submitted that it was for the appellants to place on record appropriate material for enhancement. He submitted that even the valuation of the house as on 2017-2018 was not produced by the appellants for consideration of the concerned court. In absence of any evidence placed on record by the appellants seeking enhancement of compensation with respect to the house structure, the learned court has rightly refused to interfere with the Award No.13.

6. Considering the nature of the dispute, the sole point for determination is as to “whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation for the house/building standing on the acquired land”

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the land and building of the appellants were acquired in the year 2017-2018 and the award was prepared separately in connection with the land and the building. The award in connection with the land was Award No.4 and the Award in connection with the buil