JUDGMENT
Vikramaditya Prasad, J.
1. As these three appeals arise out of a common judgment and award passed by the Special Sub-Judge in I.A Case Nos. 17 of 1993, 18 of 1993 and 19 of 1993, whereby and whereunder the learned Court fixed the rate of done and Tand land at the rate of Ks. 500/- and 400/- per decimals respectively. besides the Court also directed for payment of solatium @ 30% and 9% Interest for one year and 15% Interest after one year on enhanced amount, accordingly the Award of the Collector all the three cases was modified, hence they have been taken together and are being disposed of by a common Judgment. All the lands were of village Tumang, Police Station Khelari. District Ranchi and all the claimants have received compensation awarded by the Collector on protest.
2. Admittedly by declaration No. 1 of 1986-87 dated 16.2.1986 published in page No. 227 and 228 Part-2 of the Bihar Gazette under Section 18 of the Bihar Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the lands of the following claimants-respondents situated at village Tumang, P.S. Khelari, District Ranchi were acquired by the appellant State of Bihar for opening of the caste mining operation of C.C.I, and latter compensation was awarded by the Collector which are noted below against each of the claimants respondent :
Appeal No. LA Case No.
Name of the claimants
Area of land acquired
Collector
Compensations Court’s compensation
Claimed compensation received compensation
10 of 1995 R 17 of 1993
Suresh Prasad
2.48 acres
Rs. 54,529.37 paise Rs. 1,28,939.66
Rs. 2000 per decimal Rs. 54,529.00 paise
16 of 1995 R. 18 of 1993
Shyam Kishore Saw
2.84 acres
Rs. 59,039.00 paise Rs. 1,53,349/-
Rs. 2000 per decimal Rs. 59039.00 paise
3. The common case of the appellants are that the compensation awarded by the collector was not adequate and fair. The lands were Class I done lands and the claimants were raising two crops annually paddy crops and rabby crops and the price of the lands acquired is not less than Rs. 2000/- per decimals and the claimants are also entitled to get statutory compensation like solatium, statutory interest provided under the Land Acquisition Act.
4. Before the Land Acquisition Court two witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants and one witness was examined on behalf of the State-opposite party.
CW 1 was the husband of one of the claimant’s Sabita Devi and he was also the brother in law of the claimant of I.A. Case No. 17 of 1993 and in LA.S. Case No. 18 of 1993 he himself was the party. He said that all the acquired lands are located at one place and this was acquired for construction of quarters of the C.C.I, and at the relevant time when the land as ac-quired, the rate was Rs. 2.000/- per decimal. He further said that near the land there are Cement factory, school college and colliery, namely, Dakra colliery and culvert etc. He has further stated that in the village some other lands have also been acquired. He lias admitted that in respect of that reference was made and L.A. Case Nos. 14 of 1992 to 18 of 1992 were instituted in respect of Bachra colliery. When Hie land was acquired the Land Acquisition Judge fixed the rate of lands at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per Acre. In cross-examination lie said that the land acquired as cultivable land and within the land there was coal. He also said that there was no source of irrigation but he irrigates the land from a well. He admitted that no land was purchased or sold by him. He has further admitted that the Government of officials had gone then he had shown the Patta to them. He claimed to possess the paper showing the rate of the land at the rate of Rs. 40.000/- to 50.000/- per acre and he had shown it to the Government officials.
CW 2 was from Nawadih. He has stated that at the time of acquisition the rate of the land was Rs. 2000/- per decimal and therefore, it was acquired by the C.C.I. and nearby the land there are Dakra and Bechra colliery, besides the cement factory. He admitted that nearby the land there are quarters of C.C.I, In cross-examination he said that the land acquired was raiyati land. It had been taken for cultivation. The land was agricultural land and has no relation with the colliery. He has admitted that he has no concern with the disputed land neither he had made any sale or purchase but he admitted that the Government Officials had gone on the land and he had shown the land. Thus, from the evidence of these two witnesses, this much has been clear that the land was cultivable land but no witness has said that what was the income from the land per year. The land was in the vicinity of some mines and college and hospital.
5. From the side of the opposite party State one witness was examined, who was Amin in the land acquisition office. He has said that the land has been acquired and he had produced the self-figure on the basis of which the statement was prepared. He proved the said statement, which was marked as Ext. A and he said that the land was valued on its basis. He also proved the rate report Ext. B. He has further said that the possession was taken and subsequently that possession was transferred vide Ext. C. He also said that the Award has also been filed in the case. He shows his ignorance with regard to any judgment in L.A. $ Case Nos. 14 of 1992 to 18 of 1992 made by the Court. He said that he had not seen the land and he has admitted in his cross- examination that lie cannot say that on what basis the value of the land was fixed. He admitted that he had not gone to the village. He denied that there was any colliery near the land and he also said that he does not know the Deputy Commissioner had power to fix the value of the land. From his evidence it is clear that he never went to the land and he does not know about the classification of land. He has simply produced the value statement and rate report etc. Ext. 1 is the judgment passed by the Land Acquisition Court in L.A Case Nos. 14 to 18 of 1992. The learned Land Acquisition Court decided these cases on the basis of that judgment which was passed on 25.2.1993. In that case the land was acquired for opening caste mining operation of C.C.I, for which a declaration was issued on 21,1.1986. The land was in the same village of Tumang, Police Station Khelari, District Ranch! and on consideration of the evidence the learned Land Acquisition Court fixed the rate of Done 1 land @ Rs. 500/- per decimal and Tanr I land @ Rs. 400/- per decimal. Then there are two sale deeds (from the record it is not found that who proved it). Ext. 2 is a sale deed of the year 1980 for a consideration of a sum of Rs. 3000/- four decimate of land was sold but the nature of the land was not shown in this sale deed. Ext. C, is the delivery of possession received by the C.C.L. officials Ext. A is the statement which shows classification of land showing the land as Tanr or Dhan etc. But as stated on that basis it has been produced is not proved and the opposite party witness No. 1 admitted that he had not gone in the village.
6. Undisputedly the lands in the cases under reference were acquired under declaration on 16.2.1986. In his own judgment on which the learned Land Acquisition Court has relied heavily and Followed the same in this cass, the lands were acquired on 21.1.1986 in village, Tumang. Qn perusal of Ext. 1, it appears ” thai the land was acquired In that case in village Tumang i.e.. the same village and Lhe date of acquisition is of same year. Un-dispuLedly the land acquired in the cases on which judgment Ext. 1 delivered and the land acquired in the present three appeals are the similar land and they were acquired for the same purpose and almost at the same time. The learned Land Acquisition Court relied on his own previous judgment delivered by Ext. 1, while passing the impugned judgment against which the instant appeals were filed, was delivered 23.6.1993 and the judgment (Ext. 1) was passed on 25.2.1993 only four months back. The question now is whether the learned Land Acquisition Court was Justified in basing the subsequent judgment on his previous judgment. In the case of Karan Singh and others v. Union of India, reported in (1997) 8 SCC 186, it has been held that the previous judgment must be relied but attending circumstance should also be considered. Therefore, if the attending circumstance is similarly found then the Court is justified in relying on his previous judgment. On perusal of the previous judgment it transpires that the claim of those claimants was even better because In some of the land there were houses, well, boundary wall, still considering the evidence, the Court fixed the aforesaid valuation. In the instant case though the evidence has been adduced and no similarity has been brought on record rather it has also not been proved by witness examined on behalf of the claimants that the land was yielding crops, so there is a difference between the lands, yet the learned land Acquisition Court relying on his previous judgment in respect of almost similar land ill the same village fixed the same valuation for the lands in impugned judgments and in doing. so he was not unjustified.
7. In the result. In view of the above discussion I do not find any merit in these appeal, Accordingly, all appeals are dismissed. Appeal dismissed.