BIDYA SATNAMI Vs. ZONE OFFICER L A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above two appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') are by the claimant and the State respectively as against the award passed on 23.12.1997 by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dharamgarh in M.J.C. No. 40 of 1996 on the basis of reference made by the Land Acquisition Collector. For the sake of convenience, we describe the appellant in First Appeal No. 99 of 1998 as the Claimant and the appellant in First Appeal No. 157 of 1999 as the Opposite Party.

(2.) BOTH the appeals are heard analogously on consent of both the parties and disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) THE Claimant advances the contention that on the face of the evidence of P.Ws. and the report -Ext. 1 the award passed by Learned Civil Judge is grossly inadequate and the Claimant is entitled tot he cost of excavation as per the report, Ext. 1. Learned Counsel for the claimant -appellant alternatively argues that even if accepting the calculation in the method of capitalization, in this case the multiplier should have been 16 times of net annual income in accordance with the ratio in the case of the Executive Director v. Sarat Chandra Bisoi and Anr., AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2619. Accordingly he argues to enhance the compensation.