JUDGMENT
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.
1. Both the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment as common questions of law and facts are involved in that matter.
2. Both the appeals are directed against the judgment dated 13.1.1994 and award dated 5.2.1994 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 74 (72) of 1989.
3. First Appeal No. 11/94(R) has been filed for payment of compensation with respect to well as the compensation paid for well is very low and the learned Court below committed error in not relying the report of the Commissioner, who assessed the value of the well at Rs. 33,179.38 paise. It is said that the learned Court below should have considered the evidence led by the appellant in the original case, which will show that the appellant proved the cost of the well at Rs. 50,000/-.
3. On the other hand, the learned Court below itself stated that the construction value of the well is Rs. 33,179.38 paise and the Land Acquisition Officer valued the same at Rs. 8151/- abruptly without any basis and the Court valued the well at Rs. 14,000/-, although he ought to have valued the same at least at Rs. 34,000/- and the learned Court below should have also granted 30% as solatium and @ Rs. 15% for other charges, although in different case the learned Court below paid Rs. 23,151,72 paise for such a well which is smaller than that of the appellant and as such, the learned Court below should have awarded compensation at Rs. 34,000/- besides interest at the rate of Rs. 24%.
4. First Appeal No. 28/94 (R) has been filed against enhancement of the valuation at Rs. 54,000/-. It is stated that the finding of the learned Court below was not according to the facts and evidence on record and the same is liable to be set aside. It was further pointed out that the learned Court below have gravely erred in valuing the land at Rs. 33,178,38 paise when the applicant -respondent has not brought any evidence on record that value of the compensation fixed by the Collector was arbitrary and insufficient. It is submitted that applicant had successfully proved the case for lower compensation but the learned lower Court has granted higher compensation. It is further submitted that parties will show that the appellant have been able to prove the compensation fixed by the Collector was just and proper and the learned Court below should have taken into consideration the report of the technical staff of the Land Acquisition Department.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the cost of the well has been fixed by the Land Acquisition Judge at Rs. 14,000/- with other statutory relief, although the Collector had fixed at Rs. 8,151/- as the value of the well. It was also pointed out that there was no scope of enhancement of valuation of well above Rs. 8,151/- as there is no evidence on this point for enhancement. No evidence has been laid down on behalf of the opposite party-petitioner.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant pointed out that an Amin Commissioner was appointed by the Court to measure the well and to submit finding with regard to its valuation and Amin Commissioner reported that valuation of the well will come at Rs. 33,179.38 paise, but the learned Court below while passing the order enhanced the value of the well from Rs. 8,151/- to Rs. 14,000/-. But in fact, as per submission of the learned counsel for the claimant, the valuation should have been fixed at Rs. 33,179.38 paise as per assessment made by the Amin Commissioner because he was allowed to examine the matter by the learned Court below and in pursuance of that order, he held inquiry and came to the finding that the valuation of the well will be Rs. 33,179.38 paise and on the basis of this piece of evidence brought on record by the Court, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the price of the well instead of being fixed at Rs. 14,000/- should have been fixed at Rs. 33,179.38 paise.
7. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge for assessing the compensation for the well and house, which were acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer. The OP-State Government did not led any evidence and the appellant examined six witnesses including the Advocate Commissioner and, Advocate Commissioner valued the cost of well at Rs. 33,179.38 paise, but the Land Acquisition Department valued the compensation of well at Rs. 8,151/- only. It was also pointed out that the Land Acquisition Department paid a sum of Rs. 23.151.72 paise for an ordinary well, but value of even pucca well of the appellant was assessed at Rs. 14,000/- only by the learned Land Acquisition Judge and when the Advocate Commissioner had gone at the instance of the Court and valued the well at Rs. 33,179.38 paise, the learned Land Acquisition Judge should have granted that much of amount as the value of the well and by not allowing the same and fixing another amount, is not proper.
8. In that view of the matter, appeal No. 11 of 1994 (R) is allowed and the amount of well is fixed at Rs. 33,179.38 Paise with all the reliefs as granted by the learned Land Acquisition Judge. The amount will carry all the statutory reliefs with solatium and interest.
9. So far as appeal No. 28 of 1994 (R) is concerned, OP-State has not brought any material on record to show that the amount fixed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge is not proper. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this appeal filed on behalf of the State, which is accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. FA 11/94(R) allowed and FA 28/94(R) dismissed.