BIJAY SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act) is directed against the judgment dated 27thJanuary 1984of the Additional District Judge in a reference made to him under Section 18 of the Act. The land in question is situated in Village Jasola. Notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act were both issued on 31st December 1976. The Land Acquisition Collector made his award on 2nd February 1979 fixing the market value of the land at Rs.7.060.00 per bigha. On a reference undersection 18 of the Act, the learned Additional District Judge fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 10.000.00 per bigha. Still not satisfied, the appellants have filed this appeal.

(2.) When the appeal was originally filed, it was stated that the market value of the land was Rs.30,000.00 per bigha. However, during the pendency of the appeal, the appellants have sought amendment of the memo of appeal now claiming Rs.55,000.00 per bigha as the market value of the land. This is by an application (C.M. 108/92). We had issued notice of this application but there has not been any response to the same. The application, therefore, is allowed.

(3.) Mr.AtuI Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, has referred to a decision of this Court in RFA 51/83 entitled union of India Vs. Nand Kishore wherein a bench of this Court, by judgment dated 6th March 1984, upheld the fixation of market price of the land in Village Bahapur at Rs.55,000.00 per bigha. This value had been arrived at by the Additional District Judge on a reference made to him under Section 18 of the Act. Wemay, however, note that inthiscase,the notification under Section 4of the Act was of the year 1972. In the present case, as noted above, the notification under Section 4 of the Act is of the year 1976. Itis not our opinion that same value is to be arrived at in this case just because two villages are adjacent to each other but there is a difference of four years in issue of notification in the present case and that in RFA 51 /83.