JUDGMENT
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.
1. This appeal arises out of a judgment dated 16,10,1993 and award dated 8.12.1993 passed by learned Subordinate Judge-1 cum Land Acquisition Judge, Palamau at Dalthonganj in Land Acquisition Case No. 33/86 allowing reference and enhancing the quantum of compensation.
2. It appears that pursuant to the notification published in Zila Gazette on 15.2.1983 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the lands of village. Lohanda, P.S. Patan, District Palamau for extension of Rajhara colliery were acquired and after issuance of declaration compensation was assessed and award was prepared. The claimant disputed the valuation of the lands fixed by the Collector and sought reference of the dispute under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
3. The case of the plaintiff-claimant is that description of the land is fully detailed at the foot of the petition. The land is situated by the side of pucka PWD road and is at a distance of one kilometer from Pandwa market and 12 kms. from Daltonganj and therefore, correct market valuation of the land has not been assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector. The claimant adduced both oral and documentary evidence and he has examined as many as five witnesses including himself as AW 5. AW 3 is a formal witness, who has proved the sale deed scribed by Balkrishan Mahto Taid (Ext. 2) and AW 4 Doman Thakur is also a formal witness, who has also proved sale deed No. 10410 dated 30.9.1991 (Ext. 1). The land in question was acquired in the year 1983 as notification was published on 15.2.1983 but these two sale deeds, which have been exhibited by the applicant, relate to the year after notification was published and. therefore, these sale deeds have been made on the basis of determination of price of land.
4. AW 1 is Gokul Mahto, who has slated that there is pucka road just by the side of the land and there is a hospital, post office and electricity in the village and the applicant used to grow three crops from the land in a year. AW 2 has given similar, evidence. AWs 2 and 1 have claimed the land to be said @ Rs. 7.000/- per decimal.
5. On the other hand, applicant has examined himself as AW 5 and while he was deposing in the case, stated that the Land Acquisition Department has acquired his 18 decimals of land and at the time of acquisition the land was being sold @ Rs. 3000 per decimal. According to him there was a well over the land and there was a pucka road just by the side of the land. According to him, there is a hospital, Police Station just adjacent to the land. He has given price of the well at Rs. 50.000/- and he used to grow three crops every year.
6. On behalf of the respondents, two witnesses were examined and OP No. 1 is Narayan Choudhary who has deposed that he was posted there in the year 1988-89 and, therefore, his evidence is of no value. Similarly OP No. 2 Subodh Prasad Singh has stated that he made local inspection over the land and looked into the khatiyan and sale deeds and submitted his report but he has stated that he joined there in “the year 1992 and, therefore, his evidence is also of no value in the case.
7. Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that applicant-respondent has admitted that at the time of acquisition the land was being sold at Rs. 3000 per decimals and, therefore, the price of the land per acre will be Rs. 30.000/- and learned acquisition Judge has committed error in fixing the valuation of the land at Rs. 40.000/- per acre,
8. I have gone through the evidence of the AW 1 and I am of the view that the claimant AW 5 has himself admitted that at the time of acquisition the land was being sole of Rs. 3000/- per decimal, hence correct value of the land per acre will be Rs. 30.000/- per acre and other findings of the learned Court below will remain the same.
9. With this modification in the valuation of the land, thus appeal is allowed in part. However, no order as to costs.