FIRST APPEAL No. 642 OF 1993
STATE OF BIHAR...............................................Opp. Party-Appellant
Versus
BIRENDRA PRASAD............................................Applicant-respondent
With
FIRST APPEAL No. 646 OF 1993
STATE OF BIHAR....................................................Opp. Party-Appellant
Versus
SADIQUE MIAN.......................................................Applicant-respondent
Both the appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated
07.06.1993 passed by Sri A.N.Chaudhary, Sub Judge I-cum-Land
Acquisition Judge, Sitamarhi in L.A. Case No. 33 of 86 and 37 of 86
respectively.
For the Appellant - Mr. Narmadeshwar Jha, A.A.G. 7 (in
both the First Appeals)
- Ms. G. Nisha, A.C. to A.A.G.-7
For the Respondent - Mr. Khatim Reza, Advocate (in F.A. No.
642 of 1993)
- Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate (in F.A. No.
646 of 1993)
Dated : 13th day of September, 2010
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO
------------
JUDGMENT
Mungeshwar The State of Bihar has filed these two First Appeals against the
Sahoo, J.
common judgment dated 07.06.1993 and the decree signed on
11.06.1993 by Sri Abhaya Nand Chaudhary, the learned Sub Judge I-
cum-Land Acquisition Judge, Sitamarhi in L.A. Case No. 33 of 86 and 37
of 86. First Appeal No. 642 of 1993 arises out of L.A. Case No. 33 of 86
2
whereas First Appeal No. 646 of 1993 arises out of L.A. Case No. 37 of
86.
(2) The lands of the claimants-respondents of both the cases
were acquired by the State of Bihar for the purpose of rehabilitation of
people of Village-Adambandh under Bagmati Project Scheme. In L.A.
Case No. 33 of 86, total 0.42 acres area of Birendra Prasad was acquired.
In L.A. Case No. 37 of 86, total area of 1.10 acres of
Sadique Mian was acquired. It appears that the lands are small parts of
various plots. The notification under Section 4(i) of the Land Acquisition
Act was issued on 01.05.1982. Award No. 21 was prepared in the name
of Sadique Mian whereas Award No. 25-K was prepared in the name of
Birendra Prasad fixing the value of the land at the rate of Rs. 167.76 per
decimal. Therefore, both the claimants filed applications for making
reference of the case under Section 18 of L.A. Act claiming that on the
date of notification under Section 4 of L.A. Act, the value of the lands
acquired were about Rs.2,000 per decimal.
(3) The claimants adduced evidences oral as well as
documentary in the Court below in support of their claim regarding
market value of the land at Rs.2000 per decimal. The State of Bihar did
not file any objection nor any witness was examined on behalf of the
State of Bihar.
(4) After trial, the learned Court below relying upon the various
sale deeds and the earlier judgments for the lands acquired by the same
notification for the same purpose of the same village and determined the
value of the land at Rs.1700 per decimal.
(5) Learned AAG-7 appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar-
appellant submitted that the learned Court below has fixed the market
3
value of the land at a very high rate. The learned Land Acquisition Judge
should not have enhanced the rate from Rs.167.76 to Rs.1700 per
decimal.
(6) The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the
respondents-claimants in both the appeals submitted that the valuable
lands of the claimants have been acquired by the State of Bihar. The
claimants have produced sale deeds as well as earlier judgments of the
Land Acquisition Judge and relying upon those evidences, the learned
Court below has fixed the rate of the land. Therefore, there is no
illegality in the impugned judgment and decree. On these grounds, the
learned counsel for the respondents submitted that these appeals are
liable to be dismissed.
(7) In view of the above contentions of the parties, the points
arises for consideration in these appeals is that “whether the market
value of the land fixed by the Land Acquisition Judge is proper and just”
and “whether the impugned judgment and decree are sustainable in the
eye of law.”
(8) In this case, by the same notification, the lands of both the
respondents were acquired for the same purpose. In both the land
acquisition cases, the claimants have adduced oral as well as
documentary evidences. In L.A. Case No. 37 of 86, A.W. 1 has been
examined on behalf of the claimant who is son of claimant. He has
stated that 1.10 acres of land were acquired for rehabilitation of people.
The lands situated just by the side of the road near Bairagania Railway
Station, Bairagania Bajar and also near Gaur Bajar of Nepal and custom
office of India and Nepal. He has also stated that on the date of
notification under Section 4(i) of the L.A. Act, the market value of his
4
land acquired was Rs.2000 per decimal. He has stated that by same
notification, the land of Birendra Prasad who is claimant in the other land
acquisition case was acquired. The nature of the land is same and the
purpose for which it was acquired is also same and award was passed by
the Land Acquisition Judge in L.A. Case No. 52 of 1986 fixing the market
value of similar type of land at Rs.1700 per decimal. P.W. 2 has stated
that after receiving the land from the State of Bihar, he has constructed
the house on it. A.W. 3 has also stated that the value of the land
acquired is about Rs.2200-2400/- per decimal. A.W. 1 in L.A. Case No.
33 of 86, Birendra Prasad himself has also stated that the lands are
situated by the side of the road near Bairagania Market, Bairagania
Railway Station, Gaur Bajar etc.
(9) The claimants have also filed Exhibit-4 series which are sale
deeds which show that the lands were sold in the year 1982 at the rate
of Rs.2500 per decimal. The judgment of the Land Acquisition Judge
passed in L.A. Case No. 52 of 1986 has been marked as Exhibit-3. From
perusal of the said judgment, Exhibit-3, it appears that the other lands of
Birendra Prasad, respondent in First Appeal No. 642 of 1993 was
acquired by the same notification for the same purpose and the lands
were similar in nature. Birendra Prasad filed application under Section 18
which was referred to Land Acquisition Judge and after considering the
evidences available in that case, the Land Acquisition Judge fixed the
market value of the land at Rs.1700 per decimal.
(10) In the present case, the claimants have adduced
evidences that the lands involved in these reference cases also are
similar in nature and for the same purpose by the same notification,
lands have been acquired. There is no contrary evidence available on
5
record. Relying upon the said decision, Exhibit-3, learned Land
Acquisition Judge has fixed the market value of the land at Rs.1700 per
decimal.
(11) In a decision reported in (1996) 2 PLJR 151(The State
of Bihar vs. Maheshwari Prasad), this Court held that the best
evidence is the judgment and decree passed by the Special Judge in
relation to the different reference case arising out of the same land
acquired under the same notification for the same purpose. In the said
decision, the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Special
Land Acquisition Officer vrs. Sri Siddappa Omanna Tumari
reported in AIR 1995, Supreme Court 840 and the case of Har
Charan vs. State of Haryana reported in 1983 BBCJ(SC) page 11
were relied upon.
(12) As stated above, the lands acquired in the present case
are similar in nature as that of the land involved in Exhibit-3. The lands
were also acquired for the same purpose and by same notification. The
learned Court below therefore, rightly relied upon the judgment, Exhibit-
3 and fixed the same rate in the present case also. I find no illegality in
the judgment. Therefore, the market value fixed by the learned Land
Acquisitoin Judge for both the cases is hereby confirmed.
(13) In the result, I find no merit in both the First Appeals and
accordingly, both the First Appeals are dismissed.
(14) In the facts and circumstances, the parties shall bear their
own costs.
(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)
Patna High Court, Patna
Dated 13th September, 2010
N.A.F.R./ Saurabh