COLLECTOR RAIGARH Vs. HARISINGH THAKUR AND VICE VERSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two cross-appeals by certificates of fitness granted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at jabalpur are directed against the judgment and decree dated December 1, 1961 of the said High Court dismissing the Misc. (First) Appeal No. 43 of 1959 preferred by the appellant from the Award dated December 20, 1958 of the II Additional District Judge, Raigarh in Miscellaneous Judicial case No. 59 of 1958 being a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, made at the instance of the appellant in respect of the Award dated August 23, 1957 of the Land Acquisition Officer, Raigarh.

(2.) The facts giving rise to these appeals are:On an undertaking given by him to pay full compensation with interest from the date of possession to the date of payment of compensation as provide in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the District Engineer, South Eastern Railway, Raigarh, took advance possession on January 17, 1957 of five plots of agricultural land admeasuring 3.38 acres and another plot of agricultural land admeasuring 0.14 acre adjoining the railway track situate in village Darogamuda, Tehsil and District Raigarh, a suburb of Raigarh, belonging to respondents 1 and 2 respectively for doubling the railway line between Rourkela and Durg in the South Eastern Railway. Subsequently Notification dated February 8, 1957 under Section 4 (1) of the Act for acquisition of the aforesaid plots of land was issued and published in the Government Gazette dated February 15, 1957. This was followed on March 21, 1957 by a notification under Section 6 of the Act. Although in the statements filed by them under S. 9 (2) of the Act the respondents claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 32,670 per acre i. e. at the rate of - /12/- per square foot on the ground that the plots of land in question had a great potential value as a building site and Rs. 500 for improvements and Rs. 100 as the value of one tree, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Raigarh by his award dated August 23, 1957 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,327/14/- per acre which roughly worked out at -/1/6 per square foot on the basis of the statement of sales furnished by A. S. L. .R (L. A.) prepared by Juihar Singh N. A.- W. I. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the respondents made an application to the Sepcial Land Acquisition Officer requesting him to refer the matter to the Court under Section 18 of the Act. Acceding to the request of the respondents, the Special Land Acquisition Officer made the aforesaid reference to the II Additional District Judge, Raigrah, who by his award dated December 20, 1958 enhanced the rate of compensation to -/4/- per square foot and awarded Rs. 36,808/4/- and Rs. 1,524/8/- to respondents 1 and 2 respectively as compensation. The Additional District Judge also allowed the solatium at the rate of 15% amounting to Rs. 5,521/4/- and Rs. 228/12/- to respondents 1 and 2 respectively. Aggrieved by the said Award of the II Additional District Judge, the appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur which was registered as Miscellaneous (First) Appeal No. 43 of 1959. In the said appeal, the respondents filed cross-objections claiming enhancement of compensation by Rs. 84,518.39 p. The High Court by its judgment dated December 1, 1961 dismissed the aforesaid appeal preferred by the appellant but allowed the cross-objections filed by the respondents holding the reasonable rate of compensation to the -/8/- per square foot. Consequently respondent No. 1 was held entitled to Rs. 73,616-8-0 as compensation and Rs. 11,042-8-0 as solatium and respondent No. 2 was held entitled to Rs. 3,049-0-0 as compensation and Rs. 457-8-0 as solatium. It is against this judgment of the Hgih court that the present appeals are directed.

(3.) Appearing for the appellant, Mr. Gambhir while admitting that in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Court is only concerned with finding out whether the principles on the basis of which compensation has been computed for acquisition of land under the Act have been rightly applied or not and cannot reappraise the evidence, has urged that the Additional District Judge and the High Court have erred in treating the land in question which was primarily an agricultural land as abadi land overlooking that it had not been declared as such.