COLLECTOR SEONI Vs. DADOO YOGENDRA NATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is by the collector, Seoni and is directed against an award made by the Additional District judge, Seoni on 2nd May, 1967 on a reference under Section 18 of the Act

(2.) AN area of 7. 35 acres of land belonging to the respondents out of Khasra No. 47/1 situate in village Nangelipeth, District Seoni was acquired by the State government in 1963 for implementation of Seoni Water Supply Scheme. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the Government Gazette on 4th November, 1963. Notices under Section 9 of the Act were issued to the respondents on 28th December, 1963 in reply to which they filed their claim for compensation on 25th February, 1964. The respondents stated that though the price of the land was much more, they were willing to accept compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per acre. The land Acquisition Officer made his award en 17th august, 1964. On the material produced before him he held that value of the land acquired was Rs. 450/- per acre. He, therefore, awarded a sum of Rs. 3,804/ (including 15 percent for compulsory nature of acquisition) as compensation for the land as also interest at 4 per cent from the date of taking over of possession, i. e. 19th September, 1964 until payment. The respondents then applied for a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Additional District Judge, Seoni who heard and decided the reference came to the conclusion that the market value of the land should be fixed at Rs. 11,000/-per acre. On this finding a sum of Rupees 80,850 together with 6% interest was awarded by the Additional District Judge to the respondents as compensation.

(3.) BEFORE we proceed to examine the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant we must first dispose of a preliminary objection regarding the tenability of appeal. The objection is that the Collector has no right of appeal and therefore the appeal should have been filed by the State. There is no substance in this objection as it is concluded against the respondents by a Division Bench ruling of this Court in Collector, Raigarh v. Chaturbhuj, 1964 MPLJ 220 at p. 222: (AIR 1964 Madh Pra 196 at p. 199) where it was observed: