FIRST APPEAL No. 190 OF 2005
Against the judgment and award dated 17.02.2005 passed by 4th Additional
District Judge, Nawada in Land Acquisition Case No. 45 of 1985/22 of
1991.
STATE OF BIHAR .......... Opposite Party-Appellant
Versus
BIMALA DEVI ......... Applicant-Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 193 OF 2005
Against the judgment and award dated 14.02.2005(Award signed on
25.02.2005) by 4th Additional District Judge, Nawada in Land Acquisition
Case No. 350 of 1984/50 of 1991.
STATE OF BIHAR .......... Opposite Party-Appellant
Versus
PARO DEVI ......... Applicant-Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 194 OF 2005
Against the judgment and award dated 21.03.2005(Award signed on
01.04.2005) by 4th Additional District Judge, Nawada in Land Acquisition
Case No. 24 of 1985/44 of 1991.
STATE OF BIHAR .......... Opposite Party-Appellant
Versus
MOHAN SAO ......... Applicant-Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 195 OF 2005
Against the judgment and award dated 21.03.2005(Award signed on
01.04.2005) by 4th Additional District Judge, Nawada in Land Acquisition
Case No. 36 of 1985/14 of 1991.
STATE OF BIHAR .......... Opposite Party-Appellant
Versus
RAMESHWAR PRASAD ......... Applicant-Respondent
********
2
For the Appellant(in all the four First Appeals): Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma,A.C. to A.A.G. 3
For the Respondents : None
Dated : 13th day of January, 2011
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO
JUDGMENT
Mungeshwar The State of Bihar has filed First Appeal No.190 of 2005
Sahoo, J.
against the judgment and award dated 17th February, 2005 in L.A. Case
No.45 of 1985/22 of 1991, First Appeal No.193 of 2005 against the
judgment and award dated 14.02.2005 passed in L.A. Case No.350 of
1984/50 of 1991, First Appeal No.194 of 2005 and First Appeal No.195 of
2005 against the judgment and award dated 21.03.2005 passed in L.A.
Case No.24 of 1985/44 of 1991 and L.A. Case No.36 of 1985/14 of 1991
respectively, all passed by the learned 4th Additional District Judge,
Nawada.
(2) Since in all the above four First Appeals, the lands
have been acquired by the State of Bihar by same notification and for the
same purpose and the points involved in all the First Appeals are same.
It appears that judgments are also on the same line. The evidences
adduced by the parties in all the four First Appeals are also same. In all
the four First Appeals, the houses of the respondents have been acquired.
Considering the above facts that same question is involved in all the four
First Appeals, they are heard together one after the other and are
disposed of by this common judgment.
3
(3) In all the four First Appeals, the case of the claimants
is that their houses have been acquired by the State of Bihar for
construction of Phulwariya Jalashaya in Land Acquisition Case No.13 of
1982-83 of the Court of Land Acquisition Officer. Award No.132 was
prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer on 07.01.1984 for Rs.13,589.23
paise in Land Acquisition Case No.45 of 1985/22 of 1991 of the 4th
Additional District Judge, Nawada giving rise of First Appeal No.190 of
2005 and likewise, in First Appeal No.193 of 2005, Award No.75 was
prepared for Rs.21,932.38 paise, in First Appeal No.194 of 2005, Award
No.118 was prepared for Rs.9678.11 paise and in First Appeal No.195 of
2005, Award No.142 was prepared for Rs.1,25,964.18. All the claimants-
land holders-respondents received the said awards prepared by the Land
Acquisition Officer with objection and filed application under Section 18 of
the Land Acquisition Act claiming that the compensation paid by the Land
Acquisition Officer is inadequate and very low and therefore, the matter
may be referred to the Land Acquisition Judge. Accordingly, their
applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act were referred to
the Land Acquisition Judge.
(4) According to all the respondents, their houses have
been acquired by the State of Bihar but it was not properly valued
according to the prevalent market rate and very low amount has been
paid as compensation. In all the above referred cases, before Land
Acquisition Judge, the claimants-respondents adduced two witnesses.
Out of the two witnesses, one is claimant-respondent and the other is of
the neighbouring village. In all the cases, the State of Bihar also adduced
one witness as formal witness who proved the Khatiyan as Exhibit A and
B. All the witnesses in all the cases have deposed giving specific
4
description of their respective houses acquired by the State of Bihar. In
First Appeal No.190 of 2005, the claimant-respondent was examined as
A.W.1 who has specifically stated that his two houses have been acquired.
In his evidence, he has described the rooms, kitchen and veranda of the
house and has also stated valuation of both the houses were Rs.25,000-
30,000. However, A.W.2 said that the valuation was about Rs.80,000-
90,000. The learned Court below found that there is no denial on the part
of the State of Bihar to the effect that house was standing on this land
which was acquired for the Phulwariya Jalashaya. Likewise, in First
Appeal No.193 of 2005, the claimant-respondent has been examined as
A.W.2. She in her evidence has clearly stated that her two houses have
been acquired. She has also described the rooms, kitchen, veranda and
roof etc. and specifically stated that the valuation of both the houses was
about Rs.80,000-90,000. In First Appeal No.194 of 2005, the claimant-
respondent was examined as A.W.2. He has also stated that his two
houses have been acquired. He has also described the houses and the
rooms comprised in both the houses and said that the valuation was
about Rs.40,000 at the time of acquisition. In First Appeal No.195 of
2005, the claimant-respondent was examined as A.W.1. He has stated
that his two houses have been acquired by the State of Bihar. One house
was pucca brick built consisting of 10 rooms and the other house also
consisting of 10 rooms having veranda, septic latrine as well as kitchen in
both the houses. He has also specifically stated that the valuation of the
houses was about 2 to 2.5 lacs. The other witnesses in all the cases have
supported the valuation. On the contrary, there is no denial on the part
of the State of Bihar about existence of house. Only Khatiyan has been
proved and according to the O.P.W.1, the valuation has been fixed on the
5
basis of Khatiyan. The learned Court below found that there is no
description of house in the Khatiyan and the State of Bihar has not
explained as to how the Land Acquisition Officer computed the valuation
of the houses. The learned Court below also found that the witness
examined on behalf of the State of Bihar admitted the fact that the award
was prepared on the basis of Khatiyan only, therefore, there was no
valuation of the house.
(5) Considering the above evidences, I find that there is
no denial on the part of the appellant regarding the existence of the
houses as stated by the claimants. There is no denial about the valuation
also. There is no denial also that only on the basis of the Khatiyan, the
compensation has been paid. There is no contrary evidence to the
evidence adduced by the applicant. From the evidences, it appears that
although, the evidences of the applicants are only oral evidences but then
those evidences, in my opinion, are reliable evidences.
(6) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
in First Appeal No.190 of 2005, the learned Court below also awarded
compensation for Well which is not payable because it is only a facility
attached to the land or the house. So far this submission is concerned,
no doubt for Well, no compensation is payable but then from perusal of
the impugned judgment, it appears that the claimant who was examined
as A.W.1 has claimed the valuation of his house as Rs.25,000-30,000 and
Rs.6,000 as cost of Well. However, the learned Court below has not
granted compensation separately for Well and only Rs.25,000 has been
awarded. I, therefore, find no force in this submission of the learned
counsel for the appellant.
6
(7) The learned counsel next submitted that the learned
Court below has relied upon only the oral evidences adduced by the
appellant which cannot form the basis for computing the compensation.
So far this submission is concerned, no doubt only oral evidences have
been adduced but then there is no denial on the part of the appellant that
no houses of the claimants have been acquired. The description given by
the claimants in their evidences has also not been denied. Considering all
these aspects of the matter, the learned Court below has awarded the
minimum compensation, although, the claimants claimed more amount
than the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Judge.
In all these cases, it appears that the State of Bihar did not produce any
evidences showing the manner of computation of the award. After taking
note of all these facts, the learned Court below has given the
compensation to the claimants-respondents.
(8) Considering the above facts and circumstances of the
case, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and award
in all the four First Appeals. Accordingly, the findings of the learned Court
below in all the four First Appeals are hereby confirmed.
(9) In the result, I find no merits in the above four First
Appeals and therefore, all the four First Appeals are hereby dismissed. In
the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own
costs.
(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)
Patna High Court, Patna
The 13th January, 2011
Saurabh/N.A.F.R.