PANNALAL MOURYA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the impugned order/award dated 15-1-2010 passed by Additional Judge, Sakti in Misc. Civil Case No. 57/2008, whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the reference application. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant's land bearing khasra No. 723/1, area 0.08 acre is situated near highway road and the said land has been submerged in Bilaspur-Ratgarh National Highway No. 200, in the year 1964-65. After submerging the land, the respondent-authorities had not started proceedings for land acquisition. After several requests of the appellant the Land Acquisition Officer, Sakti had started proceedings in the year 2006. The Land Acquisition Officer proceeded under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") as per notification issued on 8-6-2007. The grievance of the appellant is that during the course of hearing, proper opportunity was not given to the appellant and after completion of the proceedings, the award was passed on 1-10-2007. In the said award, the Land Acquisition Officer had not properly assessed the land in question of market value, interest solatium, as per Sections 23, 23(1-A), 23(2), 28, 31 and 34 of the Act.

(2.) On perusal of the report of Land Acquisition Officer, we have found that application for reference was moved before him on 5-1-2008 against the award dated 1-10-2007 but the same was rejected vide order dated 25-4-2008. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application directly to the Additional District Judge, Sakti mentioning the Section 18(3)(b) of the Act with a prayer for direction to the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the land acquired and after providing opportunity of hearing to assess the value of the land.

(3.) Additional District Judge, Sakti registered the application as MJC No. 57/2008 under Section 18(3) of Act on 5-9-2008 but decided the same under Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act after framing issues and recording evidence of the applicant, as no reply was given to the application by the respondents. The application was rejected on the ground that the appellant has failed to prove his case and the Land Acquisition Officer has assessed the value of land correctly. Hence this appeal.