JASVIR SINGH Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals have been filed against a common judgment and order dated 7.12.1988 passed by the District Judge, Rampur in Reference No. 21 of 1987, Jasvir Singh v. Land Acquisition Officer and Reference No. 27 of 1987 deciding reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by which compensation awarded to the appellant was increased from Rs. 12,000/ - to 17,000/ - per acre. The brief facts giving rise to these two appeals need to be noted. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 18.8.1981 was issued for acquisition of Plot No. 240. Area 1.80 acres belonging to the appellant in first appeal No. 880 of 1993 and area 4.51 acres of appellants in appeal No. 401 of 1998 was sought to be acquired for the purpose of construction of railway line from Rampur to Haldwani. Simultaneous declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued which was published on 14.11.1981. Notice under Section 9 was issued asking the land holders to appear on 25.8.1996. On 19.9.1986, the possession of the land was taken by the Collector since urgency clause under Section 17(1) was invoked while issuing notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The award was issued on 22.9.1986 under Section 11 of the Act. Special Land Acquisition Officer fixed the valuation of the land as Rs. 12000/ - per acre. With regard to valuation of trees and other assets, it was mentioned in the award that the necessary report regarding valuation of the trees etc. are awaited and the compensation for the aforesaid shall be determined separately. The appellants received the compensation as awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. However, a request for making reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was made. On the application submitted by the appellants, reference No. 21 of 1987 Jasvir Singh v. Land Acquisition Officer and reference No. 27 of 1987 Kuljeet Singh and Lakhvir Singh v. Land Acquisition Officer, were registered before the District Judge, Rampur. In both the above references, following issues were framed:

(2.) AFTER the remand by the Apex Court, these two appeals have been heard. It is also relevant to note that after the aforesaid remand by the Apex Court on 12.9.2005, a writ petition No. 77449 of 2005 was filed by Jasvir Singh and others v. State of U.P., challenging the entire land acquisition proceedings which writ petition has also been heard along with these two appeals and which writ petition is being disposed of by the order of the date separately.

(3.) SRI Ram Krishna, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State submits that the appellants have received the compensation for some trees also. Referring to the counter -affidavit filed by the appellant in appeal No. 880 of 1993, he submits that the compensation for 28 trees of guava to the tune of Rs. 20,720/ - + 12% additional amount and solatium has been pa as per rules. Sri Ram Krishna submits that the report of the Divisional Commissioner and the District Magistrate recommending the payment of compensation at the rate of 2008 -09 has rightly not been accepted by the State Government and the State Government has shown its willingness at the rate of Rs. 30,000/ - per acre. He further submits that the aforesaid order of the out of Court settlement was passed in writ petition No. 77449 of 2005 and is not relevant for deciding the present appeal. Sri Ram Krishna submits that the scope of the present appeals are only the order of the District Judge dated 7.12.1988 by which both the references have been decided.