STATE Vs. RAJ NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the State of U. P., the Collector, Ballia and the Land Acquisition Officer, Ballia, against the judgment dt 25-9-1973 in Misc. Reference 3 of 1971 under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

(2.) Some land belonging to the claimant-respondent 1 was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The relevant notification under S. 4 was issued on 4-11-1965. The notification under S.6 was issued on 1-12-1965, and possession taken on 10-10-1966. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant-respondent prayed for a reference being made to the District Judge and reference No. 3 of 1971 mentioned above was made. Reliance before the District Judge was placed on behalf of the claimant-respondent on certain sale deeds as exemplars. The District Judge was of the view that the sale deed dt. 3-8-1965 executed by Badri Lal in favour of Smt. Sujan Kumar in respect of 10 acres of land for a sum of Rs. 4500/- was the best exemplar, inasmuch as it was executed a few months before the Notification under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the land sold by it was barely one furlong from the land acquired and was of the same nature as the land acquired. Relying on the statement of Bhagwati Datt Tewari (P.W. 4) who stated that the value of the land at the time of its acquisition was Rs.1000/- per Katha, the District Judge came to the conclusion that the proper compensation to be awarded in respect of the land of the claimant-respondent would be at the rate of Rs. 30,770/- per acre. This he did in view of the fact that the sale deed dt. 3-8-1965 which was found by him to be the best exemplar was in respect of a "small area whereas the land acquired under the Notification under S.4 referred to above was more than 20 acres in area.

(3.) It has been urged by the Standing Counsel, appearing for the appellants that the amount of compensation awarded by the District Judge is excessive. On the other hand it has been urged by the counsel for the claimant-respondent that the amount as awarded by the District Judge represented just compensation and that the claimant-respondent was also entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 9% in place of 6% in view of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act).