JUDGMENT
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.
1. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, arises out of judgment dated 16.10.93 and award dated 8.12.93 passed by Sub-Judge Ist-cum-Land Acquisition Judge, Daltonganj, Palamau allowing the reference and enhancing the quantum of compensation.
2. It appears that pursuant to the notification published in the Zila Gazette under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the land of Ramcharitar Mahto bearing Thana No. 199, Khata No. 107, Plot No. 4/21 P/B having an area of 0.37 acres of land of village Lohanda, P.S. Paton, District Palamau was acquired for extension of Rajhara colliery in village Lohanda. After issuance of declaration, compensation was assessed and award was prepared. The claimant disputed the valuation of the lands fixed by the GolJector and sought reference on dispute under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
3. The case of the claimant is that the land situates in an area, where there is a pakka PWD National High Way passing through the village Lohanda, which is hardly at a distance of one mile away from Kajri Railway-Station. There is a High School and Middle School in the village. Applicant has irrigational facility through the electric pump and the applicant used to grow three crops in one year from the area and the land is also fit for housing purposes. The claimant adduced evidence both oral and documentary, in support of the valuation of the land and against the said claim no objection, written statement, show cause was filed. However, two witnesses were examined on behalf of the State.
4. The learned Court below, after considering evidence brought on record, recorded the findings and held that the lands situate near the developed area and its valuation cannot be less than Rs. 40,000/- per acre.
5. Mr. Shamim Akhtar, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the Sale Deed, which has been marked as Ext.-1, relates to a period after acquisition of the land and it is natural that when the land is acquired by the Government for some purpose, then price of the nearby land is increased. Learned counsel further pointed out that in the instant case, Collector has put correct valuation of the land, but Ext.-1 which is a Sale Deed shows that 8 and 1/2 decimal of land has been sold for Rs. 4,500/- but that Sale Deed has been executed after acquisition of the land by the State Government and after notification regarding acquisition of the land by the State Government and learned counsel, therefore, submitted that exorbitant price has been fixed by the learned Court below and that valuation should not be allowed.
6. On behalf of the applicant, nine witnesses have been examined and some of the witnesses appearing on behalf of the appellant have stated that land is sold at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per decimal in the village. Ram Charitra Mahto is AW 1. He has come to say that Lohra Mauza land is sold at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre. AW 2 is Ram Chandra Mahto. He has also stated that land is sold at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre and the land acquired by the State Government should be valued at Rs. 40,000/- per acre. AW 3 is Krishna Mahto. He has also made similar evidence that land is sold at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre. AW 4, is Fally Mahto. He has come to say that land has been claimed at Rs. 40,000/- per acre. AW 5 is a formal witness who has brought register from the Registry Office where he works and he has also proved Ext-1. AW 6 is Nand Kishore Mistry. He has come to say that the land which has been acquired is a good land and less valuation has been fixed by the Collector AW 7 has come to say that the land in that area is sold at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per decimal. AW 9 is Ram Charitra Mahto. He has come to depose on call. He is applicant himself. He says that 36 decimal of land has been acquired by the Government.
7. On the other hand, two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the State OPW1 is Narayan Choudhary. He is in-charge, surveyor. He says that no action was taken in his presence as he has joined here in August 1988 whereas land was acquired much before that. Similarly, OPW2 is Subodh Prasad Singh. He has come to say that he made local inspection in the case and went through the Sale Deeds prior to the date of acquisition of the land and price has been fixed on the basis of the Sale Deeds executed three years prior to the date of acquisition of the land and he submitted his report accordingly, but he submits that he joined in the Land Acquisition Department in the year 1992 and, therefore, both the witnesses examined on behalf of the State are not competent to say anything about the matter in issue.
8. On perusal of the evidence of both the sides, I find that one Sale Deed (Ext. 1), which has been brought on the record, shows that 8 and 1/2 decimal of land of nearby area has been sold for Rs. 4,500/-, although Sale Deed was executed few months after the date of acquisition of land by the State Government, still price of land immediately thereafter does not vary to a great extent and the land sold just prior to the date of acquisition and soon after the date of acquisition of the land, accurate price of the land in question is given. Considering the entire evidence brought on the record, I am of the view that there is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.