(1.) The appellant, Mandir Thakur Shri Raghunath Ji, is aggrieved by the order of the learned District Judge Mahasu, who fixed the value of the two items of properties belonging to the said Mandir for the purpose of a road in the following manner:-
(2.) . The appellant claims that the value of 8 Biswas of land has, to be determined at not less than Rs.5.000.00 per Bigha but the appeal has been confined due to paucity of funds, to only an extra Rs. 1,000.00 than what has been awarded by the learned District Judge, subject of course to the payment of 15 per cent solatium on the extra Rs.1,000.00 as well. The Land Acquisition Collector made his award in respect of the lands in question on 11th November. 1968 after holding an inquiry under section 9 of the Land .Acquisition Act, the notification under section 4 having been issued by the Himachal Pradesh Government in respect of the said acquisition on 31st January. 1963. The Collector observed that the said extent of 5 Biswas in Khasra No 696/1 was found to be Banjar Kadim while 3 Biswas comprised in Khasra No. 1442/597/1 have been rorded as Ghair Murnkin Khud. In respect of the aforesaid two parcels of land, which are said to be contiguous the Collector awarded compensation at Rs. 2,000.00 per Bigha in respect of 5 Bighas what he called Kiar Awal land and Rs. 500.00 per Bigha for 3 Bighas what he called the uncultivated land On this basis he fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 200.00 plus solatium.
(3.) . The appellant moved an application under section 18 of the Act claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,000.00 per Bigha for the entire 8 Biswas. In the reply which was filed by the Land Acquisition Collector it was stated that the market value had been assessed on the basis five years average market price which came to Rs 29.36 per Bigha for uncultivated land and that the land of the appellant was of the nature of uncultivated land (Banjer Kadim and Ghir Mumkin Khud) Still it was stated that the Collector had assessed the value at Rs. 500.00 per Bigha. It is worth noticing that no further particulars had been given in the said reply concerning the nature and quality of the properties acquired and no further material had been placed on record to show that both the said parcels of land 5 Biswas and 3 Biswas, respectively, should be treated on a different footing.