LAC Vs. KRISHNU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed against the award, pronounced by the learned reference Court, upon, Land reference petition No. 28/4 of 2011, whereunder compensation amount comprised in a sum of Rs. 36000/- per biswa stood assessed, qua the acquired land, and also the statutory benefits were also bestowed thereon.

(2.) The learned Additional Advocate General has contended with much vigor before this Court (i) that the gross enhancement made by the learned reference Court, vis  -vis, the market value of the acquired land, and vis  -vis, contra distinct categories of land, brought to acquisition, rather being borne in a sum of Rs. 36,000/- per biswa, hence being unmeritworthy, and rather warranting interference. However, the aforesaid contention cannot be accepted by this Court, (ii) as the learned reference Court, in making the afore computation of market value, of, the acquired land, has placed reliance upon Ext. PW1/A, (iii) exhibit whereof is an award made, vis  -vis, land acquired in the village, whereat, the extantly acquired land(s) also stand located. A close reading of Ext. PW1/A rendered, upon, the Land reference petition 50 of 2001, unfolds qua, vis- -vis, the lands situated in a village similar to the land, whereat the extant land(s) stand located, and, in respect of bringing, to, acquisition whereof, a, notification hence stood issued in the year 1996, rather market value, of, the lands borne therein, being computed in a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per biswa. Any reliance placed thereon, by the learned reference Court, in, computing the market value, vis  -vis the extantly acquired lands, would be both un-meritworthy and untenable. (iv) Upon hence clear forthright evidence, rather making up-surging(s) qua the lands, in respect whereof Ext. PW1/A stood pronounced, not standing located in proximity to the extantly acquired land, b) hence the potentiality of the land, hence therethrough acquired being contra-distinct, vis  -vis, the extantly acquired land, (iv) however, the afore evidence is grossly amiss hereat. Consequently, the learned Additional Advocate General, cannot make, the afore contention before this Court, for hence stripping the tenacity and probative vigor, of, Ext. PW1/A, vis  -vis, the relevant factum.

(3.) Further more, apparently, under Ext. PW1/A the market value of the acquired lands, was assessed @ 20,000/- per biswa, (i) however, with the afore lands being evidently acquired, under, a notification issued in the year 1996, and, whereas vis  -vis the acquired land, the apt notification standing issued extantly hence 8 years subsequent thereto, (ii) thereupon with the apt accretion(s) and escalation(s), in, the market value, of, the extantly acquired lands, obviously making apt eruptions, and, upsurging(s), rather, since the year 1996, upto, 2004, (iii) hence meteing(s) of apt increase(s) @ 10% per annum, commencing from the year 1996 upto 2004, by the learned reference Court, in the latter gauging the market value, of, the extantly acquired land, is, both meritworthy, and, legally sound, given its bearing consonance, with, the verdict pronounced, in a case reported in HLJ 2007 594, titled as "Vidya Prakash Singh Negi and others versus State of H.P. and others", relevant paragraph whereof is extracted hereinafter: