STATE Vs. HARADHAN DEBTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State is in appeal against the award by the learned Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur, on a reference made under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, 'the Act') and the only contention raised by the learned Advocate-General is that the valuation of the 'Munda' (water reservoir) measuring Ac.1.21 decimals at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per acre is on the higher side. We find no force in this contention. As has rightly been submitted by Mr. Sinha for the respondent, when the water is let out, a 'Munda' would turn out to be a very good variety of land for the purpose of cultivation. That apart, the costs of construction of the 'Munda' has also been included by the learned Subordinate Judge in assessing its value. In our view, this valuation cannot be said to be unreasonable or excessive.

(2.) Inviting our attention to the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Raghubir Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1985 Delhi 228 (decided on December 6, 1984), Mr. Sinha has contended that the respondent is entitled to enhanced compensation in view of the provisions made in the Act as amended in 1984. No cross-appeal has been preferred and no claim has been made by the respondent in this Court after the amending Act came into force for enhanced compensation. Later in point of time, the Supreme Court has held in AIR 1985 SC 576 K. Kamalajammanniavaru v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer that the increase in the solatium to thirty per cent by the Amendment Act in 1984 is limited to the awards passed after April 30,1982 and before Sept. 24, 1984 and to appeals arising from such awards. Their Lordships have observed and held :

(3.) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs in this appeal. P. C. MISRA, J.:-. I agree. Appeal dismissed.