RAMESHWAR DAYAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is anappeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'), against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge passed in reference under Section 18 of the Act. The land belongs to village Peepalthala. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 13 November, 1959 and declaration under Section 6 on 22 November, 1962. Award in this case was made on 22 April, 1963. The appellants claim to be the 1 / 3rd owners of the land in question. Mr. Maheshwar Dayal says he is not aware as to what happened regarding the 2/3rd remaining land in question as to whether any owner thereof filed any similar appeal or not.

(2.) The Land Acquisition Collector bifurcated the land into two blocks 'A' and 'B' and assessed the market value at Rs. 1,500.00 and Rs. 1,000.00 per bigha respectively. For gardens in block 'A' compensation was assessed at the rate of Rs. 500.00 per bigha and for gardens in block 'B' at the rate of Rs. 250.00 per bigha. That was in addition to the market value of the land arrived at by the Land Acquisition Collector. On a reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation by Rs. 500.00 per bigha. Aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) At the outset Mr. Maheshwar Dayal, learned Counsel for the appellants, submitted that this case was covered by a decision of this Court in two appeals, RFA No. 54/67 and RFA No. 55/67. We sent for the files of those appeals. We find that the notification and the award are the same as in those appeals as well as in the present appeal. In those two appeals further enhancement of compensation was allowed at the rate of Rs. 500.00 per bigha. However, our attention was drawn to another Bench decision of this Court in Lehri and Others v. Union of India, RFA No. 207/67, also pertaining to the same very notification and the award in the village. This appeal was decided on 17 February, 1995. The Bench fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 9,000.00 per bigha. It would appear that the decisions in R.F.A. 54/ 67 and RFA No. 55/67 were not brought to the notice of this Court at the time when judgment in R.F.A. No. 207/67 was delivered. In the earlier appeals the judgment is dated 29 February, 1984. There is apparent conflict between the two judgments -that given in R.F.As. 54 and 55/67 and that given in RFA No. 207/67. Mr. Maheshwar Dayal submitted that we should go by the judgment in the RFA No. 207/67 inasmuch as, according to him, each appeal would depend upon the facts of each case. We are unable to subscribe to this proposition given in such general terms. The notification and the award in all the appeals being the same, the market value could not be fixed differently of various pieces of land in the village. The judgment in R.F.A. No. 207/67 was based on the judgment in the adjoining village Bharola in RFA No. 16/68. The other factors regarding the market value of the land in the village concerned were not taken into account. The unfortunate part of the conflict in two decisions is the lack of assistance given by the Government Counsel. We have been repeatedly stressing the need for proper Government Counsel to appear on behalf of the Union of India to assist us, but no assistance, we regret, is forthcoming. Since there is apparent conflict in the two Bench decisions it is better if it is resolved by a larger bench.