M.P.E.B. BETUL Vs. PREMLATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M .P. Electricity Board, being aggrieved by the award dt. 31.3. 1983 passed by Addl. District Judge, Betul in Land Acquisition Case No. 1 of 1988, has preferred this appeal u/s. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. By the said award, the Reference Court has fixed the value of the land @ Rs. 1.33 per sq. ft. Reference Court has further granted solatium @ 15% on the compensation amount as also 6% interest from the date possession of the land has been taken i.e. 12.4.1978 till its payment, but it directed that interest shall not be liable to be paid on the amount of solatium. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as M.P.E.B.) is aggrieved by fixation of value of the land @ 1.33 sq. ft. and its stand is that the same is higher, whereas according to the land owner, who has filed cross appeal, submits that fixation of the value of the land at the aforesaid rate is lower and the same is fit to be enhanced. Land owner's further grievance is that solatium @ 30% ought to have been granted and they are further entitled for interest U/s. 23 (I A) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) IT is common ground that a notification U/s. 4 of the Act was issued on 21.12.1976 and further notification U/s. 6 of the Act was issued on 12.11.1977. Possession of the acquired land was taken on 12.4.1978 and the Collector under the Act handed over the award on 30th June, 1978. On a request being made by the land owner, the matter was referred by the Collector to the Court and the Reference Court gave its award on 31.3.1993.

(3.) IN my opinion, statement of PW 4 Bhawarchand Garg that agricultural operation is being done in some portion of the land near the acquired land even today cannot lead to the conclusion that the land acquired was an agricultural land. Subsequent statement made by this witness makes the same clear when he states that the land was in part of village Tikari from before. Similarly, evidence of NA WI, B.D. Lilhore in paragraph 1 that the land was being used for agriculture purpose is contradicted by his own statement in paragraph 8 wherein, he has stated that the land was sold @ Rs. 2 -3 per sq. ft. when it was acquired. It is common knowledge that agricultural land are not sold on sq. ft. basis. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the submission of Ms. Singhai that the finding recorded by the Reference Court that the land in question is not an agricultural land, is in any way erroneous.