COLLECTOR OF KAMRUP Vs. ISHFAQUE HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgment in F. A. 32/71 will dispose of F. A. 33/71 also; the respondent in F. A. 32/71 has filed a cross-appeal, but not the respondent in F. A. 33/71. The facts giving rise to these two appeals may be stated briefly; they arise out of the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Government of Assam under (Notification No. RLA-287/59/10 D/- 13-5-60) Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act-hereinafter referred to as the Act - and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, (No. RLA.287/59/16 D/- 4-10-60). A total extent of 286B-3K-8L of land in village Noonmati was acquired as a part of Project No. IIA (there were also other similar projects I and II) for the establishment of Railway Marshalling Yard. The total extent of land belonging to the respondent in F. A. 32/ 71 is 32B-3K-18L and to the respondent in F. A. 33/71 is 16B-3K-8L. The respondent in F. A. 32/71 was given compensation at the following rates by the Land Acquisition Collector, who will be merely called Collector, at Rs. 3,500 per bigha for 3B-2K-1L; Rs. 3,000 per bigha for 11B-3K-1L and Rs. 2,000 per bigha for 17B-3K-17L. The compensation awarded to the respondent in F. A. 33/71 is as follows:-

(2.) ON a reference made under Section 18 of the Act by both the said respondents the learned Assistant District Judge No. 2, Gauhati (Reference Court) awarded compensation to both the respondents as follows:

(3.) OBVIOUSLY the same was marked not only without objection but also by consent; without the consent of the counsel for the State the same would not have been exhibited at the instance of the claimant, especially at that late stage, In the grounds of appeal by the State no objection has been taken that Ext. 8 should not have been taken into consideration on account of the same not having been proved etc. We have, therefore, proceeded on the footing that Ext. 8 was marked by consent. It has become necessary to mention this specifically because, as the subsequent discussion will show, it is a very important document for the claimants in both the appeals. Evidently because the claimants realised that the other evidence adduced was not sufficient they felt obliged to produce Ext. 8, even though they were claiming a larger amount of compensation than awarded in Ext. 8; the State, on its part, could not properly object to it because it was relevant in these proceedings and the State, which was a party to the same, had not even appealed against it. The awards in four other land acquisition cases have also been exhibited in these cases; they are Exts. 4, 5, 6 and 7. Exts. 5 and 7 relate to land acquisition proceedings commenced long after we date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present cases. Therefore, they have to be left out of consideration.