BRIJENDRA SINGH Vs. COLLECTOR ALIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Swapnil Kumar. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Sri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State.

(2.) This batch of appeals is directed against the judgment rendered by the Reference Court on 12 April 1984 turning down the claim of the landholders for enhancement in the rate of compensation awarded for the acquired land. The acquisition proceedings are stated to have commenced with the publication of a Section 4 notification in the Gazette on 19 November 1981. It is also evident from the record that the substance of this notification was published in the area on 17 April 1982. The notification under Section 6 came to be promulgated on 8 December 1981 and the possession from the landholders was taken on 21 July 1982. The total land acquired of the appellants in this batch of appeals is stated to be 50.68 acres. The land itself had been acquired by the State-respondents for the constructions of a canal under the Middle Ganges Canal Project ["the Project"]. The Special Land Acquisition Officer rendered Award on 16 February 1983 and awarded compensation @ Rs.5747.47 per bigha. All the appellants herein proceeded to make a reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act seeking enhancement of the said compensation awarded by the S.L.A.O. All these references have been dismissed by the judgment impugned herein. In this appeal, the appellant has claimed Rs.15,000/- per pucca bigha together with solatium. In the connected appeals while different amounts have been claimed, they all emanate from the same judgment of the reference court and have therefore with the consent of parties been taken up for disposal together.

(3.) During the pendency of this appeal the appellant herein filed an application for bringing on record additional evidence. The additional evidence was the judgment rendered by a reference court on 15 February 1990 in LAR No. 105 of 1985. This judgment which was rendered on the reference preferred by one Naubat Singh, in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, was for a notification issued by the same authority and the for the same purpose. Parity was also sought on the ground that the land was situate in the adjoining village and had been acquired under the Project which forms subject matter of the present appeals. The reference court in Naubat Singh has proceeded to award compensation @ Rs.10,000/- per kachha bigha. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, although the appellant have claimed Rs.15,000/- per pucca bigha and other amounts in these appeals, they restrict their claim to Rs.10,000/- per pucca bigha in terms of the judgment rendered in Naubat Singh.