The burden of proving inadequacy of the compensation amount lies with the claimant, who must provide cogent and proper evidence in support of their claim. The court is duty bound to ensure that the compensation determined is just and fair to both the individual whose property is acquired and the public paying for it.

JUDGMENT

G.D. Saxena, J.

1. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 has been preferred by the State against a judgment dated 24th September 1998 in Civil Reference Case No. 18/1998 by the First Additional Judge to the court of District Judge, Morena (M.P.) directing thereby the appellant/State to pay a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- as an Award alongwith 12% annual interest from the date of the Notification, 30% solatium on the awarded award amount with interest in accordance with the provisions of section 34 of the Act. The facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are that a Notification dated 30th March 1991 for proposed acquisition of the land under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, ad-measuring 4500 sq. ft. which is a part of Survey No. 1041, situated in village Jora Khurd, District Morena for the purposes of Chambal Awasiya Yojna was published in M.P. Rajpatra dated 19th April 1991 and in two news-papers having wide circulations in the area. After complying with the procedure as laid down in law declaration for the land required under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published. Thereafter on making enquiry, the Collector passed the award in favour of the owners/beneficiaries whose lands were acquired alongwith interest and solatium. Being aggrieved by the award, the owners/beneficiaries including the respondent filed the application under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act before the Collector for making a reference to the District Judge for consideration of their grievance. In Reference Case No. 18/1998, the District Judge after considering the evidence as adduced and hearing the parties passed the award under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act and thereby awarded a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- on the basis of the guidelines fixed by the Collector from time to time which was verified from the sale-deeds of the similar lands. Being aggrieved by the Award passed by the District Judge, the appellant-State has preferred this appeal.

2. Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the appellant/State contended that the impugned order of Award so passed is against the fact, evidence on record and the law. It is submitted that the learned Collector after considering the material passed the appropriate amount for acquisition of the lands on legal requirements at Rs. 38,500/- per Bigha, which was prevailing on the land transactions at the relevant time and the Reference court on wrong notion on the plot value of the small piece of land determined compensation which was not on reasonable grounds. Therefore, it is prayed that by allowing the appeal, the award under appeal may be quashed and the Award passed by the Collector may be upheld.

3. By submitting the cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of C.P.C., it is contended that the Award passed by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act and the Award passed in the Reference Case are on lower side. It is submitted that no valuation of the land has been made properly as per provisions of the law and the evidence as gathered and adduced by the applicant before the Reference court. It is admitted that the questioned land belonging to the respondent was a piece of land which was not useful for agriculture purposes and was situated near Morena town, nearby the place of National Highway, therefore the award calculated in terms of agricultural land is not proper. The Reference court also while awarding compensation did not consider this aspect of the matter and awarded compensation on plot value of the small piece of land. Therefore, it is prayed that the compensation on the basis of the evidence so adduced and on considering the prevailing law may be modified.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Also perused the record of the Reference court and the law applicable to the case.

5. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the Award passed by the Reference court is based on lower side and against the recognized principles of law?

6. On fact