COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION, HPPWD, MANDI Vs. RAM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals arise out of the judgment passed in 18 Reference Petitions disposed of by the learned Reference Court by judgment dated 4th September, 1999. All the Reference Petitions were consolidated and tried together as they arise out of the same Notification issued on 26.12.1979 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act) and the purpose of acquisition was also same i.e. for widening National Highway -21. It is also undisputed that the land of all the claimants -respondents is situated in Mohal Nagwain.

(2.) THE provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the Act were complied with and thereafter the Land Acquisition Collector passed a consolidated award on 25.3.1983 assessing the compensation of the acquired land on the basis of its agricultural quality. The particulars of the land of the respondents in these appeals are: -

(3.) THE claimant(s) -respondent(s) claimed Rs.10,000/ - per biswa as market value of the land on the date when the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued. The possession of the land was taken by the Department in the year 1979 and the respodent(s)claimant(s) claimed compensation for loss of earnings damage to crops etc. On the settled issues with respect to the question as to the fair market value of the land, the learned Reference Court awarded a sum of Rs.58,000/ -per Bigha. In order to reach this conclusion, the learned Reference Court considered the evidence led by the parties which consisted of sale deed Ex.P -1, which was proved by Devi Singh, PW -1, who stated that he had sold 3 biswas of land for Rs.8,000/ -and received Rs.10,000/ - separately as value of the structure. The Court holds that this deed cannot be used for the purposes of assessing the true value of the land. After remand, Ex.PA, which is the opinion of the Joint Director of Agriculture, was tendered in evidence. According to the opinion of its author Shri D.C. Thakur, Joint Director of Agriculture, the land was suitable for apple, plum and vegetable crop. The Court does not take any assistance from this report rightly holding that neither the original report nor the person who prepared this report had been produced in evidence. In these circumstances, this report was rejected. The Court also observed that the report does not state that the Director/Joint Director had visited the land. There was also no evidence with respect to the per Bigha yield as no evidence with respect to the inputs etc. required had been led.