M A RAHMAN Vs. COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The present miscellaneous appeal is against the judgment dated 28th January, 1992 passed by the learned District Judge acting as the Land Acquisition Judge in disposing Misc. Judl. Case No. 6 of 1983 as to reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act made by the Collector following an objection to the Award by him in Land Acquisition case No. LA/BD/82.

(2.) This case has a chequered background indeed. At the outset an application for time was filed for the alleged inconvenience of Mr. A.S. Ray, appearing for the appellant/claimant. Mr. Hem Raj Bahadur obtained adjournment earlier to get himself ready for necessary hearing. He has not pressed the application for time seriously. Instead he is found ready to argue the case effectively and competently.

(3.) Upon perusal of the material on record it transpires that the learned Land Acquisition Judge disposed of the reference in terms of the order of remand made by the Division Bench of this Court as per the order dated 26.5.1990. Previously the reference was disposed of and being aggrieved Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1 of 1988 was preferred. The appeal was allowed and the judgment appealed against was set aside and the matter was sent back on remand by M. N. Ray and S. K. Guin, JJ. The Division Bench held that proper legal evidence either on the date of Notification under section 4 or prior to the said date was not available on the date of determination before the authorities concerned including the learned District Judge and as such there should be an order of remand, so that the learned District Judge can give the parties further opportunities to adduce appropriate legal evidence. It was an open remand and the learned District Judge was directed to consider the matter in the proper perspective. The Award referred to land, trees and structure of the claimants/appellants. After the remand the claimants had adduced further evidence and the learned L.A. Judge decided the case as per the following issues :- (1) Was the quantum of compensation correctly assessed ? (2) Was the market value of the land considered ? (3) Was the quantum of damage taken into consideration in assessing the compensation ? (4) Was the fruit bearing trees properly valued? Another additional issue was framed as to the following extent :- (5) Did the claimants remove any trees and structures and appropriate the yields of the trees during the period from the publication of the Notification and taking over of possession by the Military Estate Officer? If so, what is the quantum of the value of the benefit enjoyed by the claimant in the said manner?