LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. GHASINATH PRADHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AWARD of compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') at a rate higher than that offered by the Land Acquisition Collector is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal under Section 54 of the Act.

(2.) FOR the Sponge Iron Factory, State Government acquired 42 acres 66 decimals of land in village Nuagaon of Keonjhar district belonging to private persons. This area included 2 acres 40 decimals of Sarada II land and 2 decimals of Sarada -I land of the claimants. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act for such acquisition was published in the official gazette on 31 -7 -1979. Collector offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,660/ - per acre of Sarada -II land and Rs. 2.200/ - per acre of Sarada -I land. Claimants were not satisfied with the rate and claimed compensation at rates between Rs. 300/ - and Rs. 500/ - per decimal. At their instance reference under Section 18 of the Act was made to the Court for determining the market value of the land. Claimants examined three witnesses and exhibited tour sale deeds in support of their claim. Trial Court on consideration of the materials held that the market value of both the categories of the land would be Rs. 10,000/ - per acre which is assailed in this appeal.

(3.) TRIAL Court has relied upon the notes of the Editor in Collector, Cuttack v. Biswambar Pati and Ors., 46 (1978) C.L.T. 41. Notes of decisions are not precedents to have either persuasive or binding effect. In case, trial Court would have made slight endeavour with the assistance of the members of the bar, it would have been able to find out that the said decision has been reported in Collector, Cuttack v. Biswambar Pati and Ors., I.L.R. (1978) Cutt. 966. It has become a common feature for the Presiding Officers now -a -days not to reflect the decisions correctly and they do not give details of the reported decision. Each journal has a mode of citation. A reported decision should reflect the correct mode of citation. It should also reflect the names of parties. Where with reference to a journal the Court whose decision has been reported cannot be known the same of the Court should also be mentioned: This slight care on the part of the Presiding Officers would save much time and energy when their decisions are subject matter of consideration at a later time.