Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.@mdashThis First Appeal has been filed by the State of Bihar against the judgment and award dated 07.02.1994 passed by Sri Laxman Oraon, the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Nawadah in Land Acquisition Case No.9 of 1994 whereby the learned Land Acquisition Judge fixed the rate of compensation at Rs.300 per decimal for the lands acquired by the State of Bihar for the purpose of rehabilitation of displaced persons.
2. It appears that notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued in the year 1979. In L.A. Case No.45 of 1978-79, the claimant''s land measuring 1 acre 51 decimal of village Parariya was acquired by the State of Bihar. The Collector awarded Rs.13023.75 for the land acquired. The claimant received the said compensation awarded by the Collector on protest and then filed application u/s 18 of the L.A. Act for reference to the Land Acquisition Judge.
3. The case of the applicant is that the lands acquired was valuable land and the value was not less than Rs.500 per decimal on the date of acquisition but the learned Land Acquisition Officer awarded a very meager amount of compensation. The application u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was filed by the land holder, claimant claiming that the compensation may be determined at the rate of Rs.500 per decimal.
4. The State of Bihar, appellant filed objection stating that the learned Land Acquisition Officer considered the prevalent market value of the land and considering the sale instances of that period, properly determined the market value of the land and, therefore, the compensation cannot be enhanced.
5. By the impugned judgment and award, the learned Court below enhanced the compensation awarded by the Collector and fixed the value of the land at Rs.300 per decimal.
6. The learned A.C. to A.A.G. 13 submitted that the learned Court below has not considered the evidence of the appellant and also the fact that the lands involved in Exhibit 1 is different than the lands involved in the present land acquisition. The learned counsel further submitted that the Land Acquisition Judge has fixed exorbitant rate of the land and, therefore, the impugned judgment and award are liable to be set aside.
7. As stated above, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of service of notice. The name of the learned counsel for the respondent is also printed in the cause list.
8. In view of the above contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, the point arise for consideration in this appeal is as to "whether the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Judge is just and proper" and "whether the impugned judgment and decree are sustainable in the eye of law?"
9. It appears that in support of the case, the claimant examined witnesses. A.W. 1 and 2 have stated that the lands of one Gauri Shankar Sharan Singh and one Uday Singh of village Parariya were also acquired for the same purpose. The nature of the land of the said two persons is similar in nature. By Exhibit-1, the Civil Court has already fixed the rate of the said land at Rs.300 per decimal. In view of the above facts and evidences, the learned Court below found that the matter has already been decided by Exhibit-1, in my opinion, the learned Court below has rightly based his finding on Exhibit-1 which is a judgment and award passed by the Civil Court earlier. It appears that in that case, the lands of the said two persons were acquired for the purpose of rehabilitation of the displaced persons. The Court below after considering the evidences available in that case fixed the rate of the land acquired as 300 per decimal.
10. It is well settled principles of law that on the basis of oral evidence, the value of the land cannot be fixed and here the documentary evidence was available. Therefore, in my opinion, the learned Court below has rightly relied upon Exhibit-1 and determined the same rate of the land acquired in the present case. The witnesses have all stated that nature of the earlier proceeding and the present proceeding are same.
11. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the learned Court below has rightly determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.300 per decimal. It appears that the learned Court below has also granted the statutory benefits to the appellant as provided under the Land Acquisition Act. I, therefore, upheld the findings of the learned Court below.
12. In the result, I find no merit in this First Appeal and accordingly, this First Appeal is dismissed.
