HUKAM CHAND JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to a Notification dated November 13, 1959 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act'), the appellant's land was acquired by the respondent-Union of India. The land was situated in Village Nimiri admeasuring 16 bighas and 8 biswas bearing Khasra No. 128. Notification under Section 4 & 6 was issued in respect of the entire land falling in Khasra No. 128, measuring 258 bighas and 6 biswas. Land Acquisition Collector made the Award on 28th February, 1962. He awarded compensation @ Rs. 2,:)00.00 per bigha, for the land falling in Block 'A' which was in two parts, with garden, and without garden, the land with garden was awarded compensation @ Rs 3,000.00 per bigha, the land without garden @ Rs. 2,500.00 per bigha. For land falling in Block 'B' without garden it was @ Rs. 2.000.00 per bigha and the land with garden @ Rs. 2,500.00 per bigha. Besides this, the appellant had also represented before the Collector that he had got a house constructed on a portion measuring 3 bighas and 3 biswas. He had no other house to live, therefore, the same should not be acquired. The Collector, accordingly left out of acquisition 3 bighas and 3 biswas of land on which the house was constructed and awarded compensation regarding remaining land measuring 13 bighas and 5 biswas.

(2.) Being aggrieved with the award of the Collector, application was moved by the appellant on 16th April, 1962, in pursuance to which a reference was made under Section 18 of the Act. This reference was contested by the respondent mainly on the ground that the award was based on a fair and reasonable basis. The learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the marked value of the I and on the relevant date was Rs. 4,500.00 per bgha and he enhanced the compensation awarded by the Collector Rs. 15.00 per bigha in addition to the amount already awarded by the Collector for the entire land measuring 13 bighas and 5 biswas and also awarded solatium and interest @ 6/o per annum.

(3.) The appellant has not been satisfied with the enhanced compensation ordered by the learned Additional District Judge and has come up in appeal before this Court.