STATE OF U P Vs. KUNWAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals, preferred under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are directed against the common judgment dated 01-06-1979 passed by learned District Judge, Nainital in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 47 of 1978 and Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 49 of 1978 whereby compen sation awarded by Special Land Acqui sition Officer has been enhanced by the said court.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that land measuring area- 13. 210 acres of village Bhona, Islamnagar, Tehsil and Pargana- Bazpur, District- Nainital, was acquired for construction of Bhona-Birha Road. The notification under Sec tion 4 (1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 26-09-1975, followed by notification dated 28-09-1975, issued under Section 6 (1) of said Act. The Special Land Acquisition Officer made an award dated 31-03-1977, providing compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 1562 per bigha in respect of the land within abadi limits and Rs. 780 per bigha in respect of the land beyond abadi limits. Dissatisfied by the same, the claimants got a reference made to the court of District Judge, claiming that the land acquired is of value not less than Rs. 25, 000/- per acre. Learned Reference Court registered the Reference Case No. 47 of 1978 (out of which First Appeal No. 1044 of 2001 has arisen), Land Refer ence Case No. 49 of 1978 (out of which First appeal No. 1045 of 2001 has arisen) alongwith other Land Acquisition Refer ence Cases Nos. 48 of 1978, 50 of 1978, 51 of 1978, 52 of 1978 and 53 of 1978 in respect of the other claimants. All these references were consolidated together by the reference court as these pertain to the land of the same village, acquired through the same notification. Learned Reference Court on the basis of claims and the objections, framed the follow ing issues: 1. Whether the compensation awarded to the claimant is unfair and inadequate? 2. To what amount of compensation is the petitioner entitled?

(3.) FIRST contention of the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the ap pellant is that the Special Land Acqui sition Officer has rightly drawn the dis tinction between the abadi land and non-abadi land and learned Reference Court has erred in law in awarding compensation at the same rate for non-abadi land at which compensation was awarded for the abadi land. No doubt, generally market value of the abadi land is more than that of the non-abadi land. It is also true that a non-abadi land cannot be said to be abadi land unless it is declared so under Section 143 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. However, on perusal of the record it does not appear that the Reference Court has awarded enhanced compensation solely for the reason that the non-abadi land is of equal value to that of abadi land. It has considered the exemplar sale deeds, filed by the parties, before coming to the conclusion as to the market rate of the land acquired.