GENERAL MANAGER, RANJIT SAGAR Vs. SANSAR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Chamba whereby he has assessed the compensation of the land at Rs.13,500/ - per biswa. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a large area of land measuring 38 bighas 11 biswas was acquired by the State of Himachal Pradesh for construction of a reservoir for Ranjit Sagar (Thein) Dam vide notification dated 19.4.1997 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Land Acquisition Collector announced his award on 30th January, 1999 whereby he fixed compensation of the land on different rates. The claimants filed Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of the Compensation.The learned District Judge awarded compensation at Rs.13,500/ - per biswas. Hence, the present appeal.

(2.) THE main contention of Sh.Aman Sood is that the petitioners only produced one sale deed to prove the value of the land and this sale deed only related to one biswa five biswansis and hence could not have been made the basis for enhancement of the compensation. Vide sale deed Ext.PW -1/A, PW -4 Chaman Lal sold one biswa and five biswansis of land for a consideration of Rs.25,000/ -. The Apex Court has laid down in a number of cases that even the sale of a small piece of land is relevant and can be used for assessing the market value of a larger piece of land but suitable deduction must be made while computing the market value.

(3.) THE claimants -petitioners shall also be entitled to statutory solatium, additional compensation and interest as per the provisions of the Act. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. Before parting with this case, I am constrained to observe that the records are not been properly maintained in the office of the Land Acquisition Officer, Dalhousie. Proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act are judicial in nature. One of the issues in the present case was whether petition under Section 18 had been filed within limitation. The petitioners examined PW -3, Record Keeper from the office of the Land Acquisition Officer, Dalhousie who stated that there is no record available in their office with regard to the filing of the reference petition. A perusal of the record shows that the reference petition is purported to have been prepared on 16.2.1999. On 1.1.2000 this reference petition was received from the office of the Collector, Land Acquisition, Thein Dam, Dalhousie. The reference petition itself does not bear any endorsement of having been filed in the office of the Land Acquisition Officer or the date of such filing. The reference petition has been sent along with the letter of the Collector, Land Acquisition dated 9.12.1999 enclosing the reference petition. Even in this case the date of filing of the reference petition has not been given. This reflects a very sad state of affair. 4. How can it be decided that a reference petition is within time or not unless some proper record in this behalf is maintained. It would be pertinent to mention that the Apex Court in Babu Ram and others Vs. State of U.P and another 1995 (2) SCC 689 in Para 38 has made the following directions: - 38. However, with a view to avoiding uncertainty and fluctuation, it would be appropriate that, the Collector, while paying compensation under Section 31, should explain in vernacular language of the claimant, informing all persons interested in the compensation that they have a right to protest against the compensation determined under Section 11 before receiving the same; has right to seek reference in writing under Section 18 of the civil court and that the application should be made expressing the specific objections in writing within the limitation prescribed under Section 18. In case of his failure to avail of the same, he would not be entitled to further right and remedy to seek higher compensation. In case the claimant be illiterate, it should be properly explained to him in his mother tongue.