SWAROOPWATI Vs. COLLECTOR DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 11 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) As vast tract of agricultural land measuring 32 acres 80 decimals belonging to various owners including land of Sumant Prasad, predeceassors-in-interest of appellants were requisitioned under the Defence of India Act, 1952 and rules made thereunder for use and occuaption of Indian Military Academy, Dehradun in the year, 1963. While academy was in possession, two notices were published on 22-1-1971 and 3-2-1971 in official Gazette under Section 7 of the Act acquiring 3 acres 94 decimals of land belonging to Sumant Prasad in Khasra Plot no. 250. He was offered compensation of Rupees 40,859-26 paise at the rate of Rs.10,370.37 per acre. If the land holder would have agreed to accept the same, this litigation would not have seen light of the day. Land holder demanded compensation at the rate of Rs.9,000.00 per bigha (1 acre = 5 bighas) which brings the rate to Rs.45,000.00 per acre. Since there was no argument, the dispute was referred to District Judge, appointed as arbitrator under the Act as provided under Section 8(1)(b,) of the Act. Parties filed statements before the Arbitrator as provided under Section 8(1)(b) of the Act. In the statement filed by appellants after death of Sumant Prasad, it was claimed that fair amount of compensation would be by treating the land to be homestead whereas collector stated that land is inferior agricultural land and as per prevailing official rate amount offered is the fair compensation.

(3.) Claimants examined witnesses and proved documents of contemporaneous transactions of land of similar nature in the vicinity to justify claim. Collector proved documents in support of his statement. Considering the materials on record, arbitrator enhanced the compensation treating acquired land as irrigated land and awarded interest at the rate of 6% per abbyn (sic) Collector has remained satisfied with the award which has become final as against him. Appellants, however, have not been satisfied and have preferred this appeal.