JUDGMENT
1. All these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.
MFA Nos. 589, 590, 591, 1552 and 1555 of 1997 pertain to the acquisition proceedings of the land in Village Naubad, Bidar Taluk. Rest of the appeals pertain to Chidri Village, Bidar Taluk. The dispute is regarding the compensation which has been awarded by the Civil Judge at the rate of Rs. 43,000/- per acre for both the villages. Whereas in respect of Naubad Village, the LAO has awarded Rs. 15,000/- per acre while in respect of Chidri Village, the compensation of Rs. 9,600/- per acre has been awarded. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the market value has been determined on the basis of the award passed in LAC No. 146 of 1988, pertaining to Myloor Village which is at a distance of about 1 km and the valuation in respect of the land of other village could not have been applied, unless it is established that the nature of the land is the same or that the market price prevailing in the two villages could be considered the same.
2. Reliance is placed on the judgments given in the case of Ranjit Singh and Others v Union Territory of Chandigarh and Jai Prakash v Union of India, wherein it is held that unless evidence is adduced to show that the land acquired is similar, the compensation cannot be determined fixing the market rate of the other village.
3. Arguments have been heard. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent that in respect of Naubad Village sale deed was also furnished.
4. I have considered over the matter. From the award of the learned Civil Judge it is evident that while fixing the market value, he’ has taken into consideration the value of the land of village Myloor which in accordance with the judgment relied by the learned Counsel for the appellant could not have been taken. Similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in the case of Kanwar Singh v Union of India , wherein it was observed that compensation on the basis of the rate of the adjoining village is not proper. Market value has to be determined on the basis of
evidence in respect of the land in that village unless the situation and potentiality of the two villages are the same. In view of the judgment given by the Apex Court, I feel that award of the learned Civil Judge is not in accordance with law.
The appeals are allowed and the order passed by the learned Civil Judge is set aside with the direction that the Civil Judge will proceed to determine the market value on the basis of evidence which is available on record or may be produced from the other side.