JUDGMENT
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. These appeals arise out of the common judgment passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, Hazaribagh in 19 reference cases being Reference Case No. 27/86, 28/86, 29/86, 30/86, 31/86, 33/ 86, 34/86, 35/86, 36/86, 37/86, 38/86, 39/86, 40/86, 41/86, 42/86, 43/86, 44/ 86, 45/86, 46/86.
2. By the impugned judgment the Land Acquisition Judge decided the reference made before him under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in favour of the claimants and enhanced the compensation.
3. It appears that the State Government acquired the land by virtue of notification issued in the year 1980 for the purpose of colliery operation of Seyal ‘D’ colliery and other purposes of the C.C. Ltd.
4. The claimants moved application under Section 18 of the said Act for reference and accordingly all the applications were referred to the Land Acquisition Judge. The case of the claimants/respondents is that the land acquired was for the purpose of colliery operation and other purposes and it is situated by the side of the coal mines and nearer to State Highway from Ramgarh to Ranchi via Patratu. According to the claimants in no case the valuation of the lands could be less than Rs. 2000/- per decimal. In support of their case, the claimants lead evidence. The findings recorded by the Land Acquisition Judge are worth to be quoted herein below :
“For want of sale figure supported by sale deeds of Mauza Seyal sale figure of Saunda Mauza was made basis for determination of market value of the land acquired. In this view of the matter Ext. 3 was availed of by the petitioners and the opposite party has had no way out, for they themselves acted upon the sale figure of Saunda Mauza (vide O.W. 1 para 7) there is obviously a difference plainly between the land used for homestead purposes and that of stretched in the remote corner through the highway. The O.Ps. have themselves made a fair distinction because for homestead land compensation was awarded subsequently @ 1.25 lakh/acre (vide para 6 O.W.1). But the fact cannot be lost sight of which the petitioners gathered in para 6 O.W. 1 wherein he has stated that the lands acquired in these cases were amalgamated with the homestead land. Before parting with my findings and recording final verdict I would like to deal with the evidence of the applicants also who have examined altogether 5 witnesses namely Yadunandan Sah, Swami Dayanand, Bir Mohan Sah, Ramkisun Sah and Kundal Sahu AW 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively. All the five witnesses aforesaid almost in common tone have stated that the prevailing market price of the lands acquired during the year of acquisition was @ Rs. 2,000 per decimals. But for want of sale deed of the relevant year disposing of the land at the said rate in Mauza Seyal that statement according the learned counsel cannot be made basis for fixation of market value of the land in question. This view of the learned PP is supported by a logic as to why the lands were not dealt in Mauza Seyal. But at the same time the Court cannot ignore the fact that subsequent to the acquisition of these lands homestead land was awarded compensation @ 1.25 lakhs/acre. It suggests market value of homestead land @ 1250/- per decimal awarde by the opposite party itself. Keeping the national interest and to strike a balance between the market value of the land adjoining to Ramgarh camp in Mauza Pochra (vide Ext. 1/A) and that of the land acquired for railway siding valued through Ext. 1 and Ext. 2 series of the documents situate on Ramgarh Gola Road on the one hand and lands disposed of by Ext. 3 on the other in my considered opinion keeping inflationary pressure in mind market value of the land in the cases under reference during the relevant year of acquisition comes to be reasonably recorded @ 975/- (Rs. Nine hundred and seventy five) only per decimal.
5. From the finding recorded by the Court below, it is evident that even Kanun-go who was examined on behalf of the appellant/State supported the case of the claimant and admitted that the land of the claimants are high site land value of which cannot be less than Rs. 2000/- per decimal. There ts nothing on the record nor the appellant could be able to satisfy this Court that the finding recorded by the Court below is either based on no evidence or misapprciation of evidence. In that view of the matter I find no reason to differ with the finding recorded by the Court below with regard to the value of the land.
6. For the reasons aforesaid, there is no merit in these appeals, which are accordingly dismissed.