G. S. N. TRIPATHI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal which arises out of judgment dt/-20-11-73 passed by the learned District Judge, Rampur in Land Acquisition Case No. 24/71, Mumtaz Ali Khan v. Collector, Rampur.

( 2 ) THE claimants were Ex Zamindars. The land in question- was in possession of occupancy tenants (Only landlord claimants have preferred reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act as well as this appeal and not the tenants ). The total acquisition was 3. 30 acres land the notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 19-3-62. The possession was taken on 21-1-65. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) gave his award on 22-3-70. The land in question was agricultural land on the date of notification under S. 4 aforesaid. But the SLAO took into consideration the potential value of the land as it could be used for building purposes too. He accordingly valued the land 1. 75 paisa per square yard. As the land was actually in possession of the occupancy tenants, the share of compensation was apportioned in the ratio of 10 for claimant Zamindars and 6 for tenants. Total amount including interest @ 6% from the date of possession was allowed to the claimants, which came to Rs. 25604. 30 paisa under the award.

( 3 ) ON the request of the claimants, reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was made and heard by the learned District Judge, Rampur.

( 4 ) THE main contention of the claimants was that the value of the land has been grossly undervalued by the SLAO. Its valuation should have been assessed @ Rs. 24. 00 per square yard. However, the claimants confined their claim to only Rs. 16 per square yard. Their contention was that the land in question was situated centrally within the municipal limits of Rampur and contiguous to Civil Lines the industrial area of the city-apart from two national highways-one Bareilly-Moradabad Road and the other Rampur -Nainital Road. It was surrounded by several industrial and commercial establishments and industrial growth had already increased the potential value of the land to a great extent. It possessed all modern amenities. It could be utilized for both residential and commercial purposes. The compensation for trees was also claimed, which has not been challenged before me.

( 5 ) THE State on the other hand stressed on the point that the claimants were merely Zamindars. The actual possession was of the occupancy tenants. The claimants had only a right to realise rent from the tenants. Further it was contended that the end had no building potential. It was merely an agricultural land on the date of notification. The land was accessible from the national highways aforesaid. There was only a small path wail up to railway crossing. The situation of the land was highly undeveloped and there is a drain on one side. There was no building activity going on nor was there any pressure for that during the past several years.

( 6 ) TAKING all these factors into consideration, the learned District Judge agreed with the assessment of valuation made by the SLAO. He accordingly dismissed the claim of the appellants.

( 7 ) FEELING aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

( 8 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. I find that there is absolutely no force in this appeal and it deserves to be dismissed, except for some benefits on technical grounds i. e. the benefit of increase in solatium and interest rate because of the amendments made in the Land Acquisition Act subsequently.

( 9 ) A map was got prepared during the course of trial. That is the part of the record. The disputed land has been shown by red colour. There is a road in extreme east. Thereafter there are quarters of power house. Then there is a Nalla. Thus the access from the east is totally closed. Towards south, there are quarters of power house. Hence the disputed land could not be approached from the south. Towards the west, there is railway land running from north

Click Here to Read the rest of this document