BADAL CHANDRA DAS Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two first appeals are at the instance of a referring claimant and are directed against the common award dated 21st august, 1996 passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, Raiganj in L. A. Miscellaneous Case No. 26 of 1994 heard along with L. A. Miscellaneous Case no. 27 of 1994 thereby enhancing the award passed by the Collector to Rs. 10,74,615/- together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the excess amount which the Collector had already paid to him.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to filing of these appeals may be summed up thus: being dissatisfied with the awards of compensation passed by the Collector (Land Acquisition, Uttar Dinajpur), the petitioner made two references under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. According to him, the market value of the acquired land was not properly assessed considering the position, location and future prospect of the land. The appellant further complained that no amount was paid for acquisition of fishery notwithstanding the fact that there was large quantity of fishes therein and the Collector made award of a meagre amount for the acquisition of the standing trees on the land.

(3.) AT the time of hearing of the proceeding, no deed was marked as exhibits in support of the price of the land of the locality although several deeds were relied upon by the parties showing the price of the lands in the area as it appears from the awards impugned herein. It further appears from record that the learned Court below, based on the documents, which are not marked as exhibits, and even not available on record, and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, disposed of those references. Before this Court, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed for an opportunity of giving evidence showing the valuation of the land by production of registered deeds executed by the different parties. The appellant also has tried to produce materials showing the amount of income from the fishery business at -the relevant point of time. It appears from awards impugned that some deeds were relied upon by the parties before the learned Court below but for the reasons best known to the Court below as well as the parties, those were not marked as exhibits and are not even available on the records of the case.