SHAHNAZ HARRIS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE land holders have filed these First Appeals against the common judgment and award dated 31.7.1999 passed by Sri Manoranjan Prasad Srivastava, the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge IV, Patna in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 1 to 9 of 1997. THE First Appeal No. 541 of 1999 has been filed by the land holders of Land Acquisition Case No. 6 of Mungeshwar Sahoo, J. 1997 whereas the First Appeal No. 544 of 1999 has been filed by the land holders of Land Acquisition Case No. 2 of 1997. Since both the Land Acquisition Cases out of which, these two appeals have been filed were decided by the common judgment and award, both these appeals are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment because common fact and law are involved in both the First Appeals. (2) It appears that total 0.683 acres of land was acquired by the State of Bihar for widening the Braj Kishore Path(Exhibition Road), Patna. Out of the said 0.683 acres land, the land measuring 0.023 acres of Shahnaz Harris, the appellant of First Appeal No. 541 of 1999 and only a part of construction of Smt. Krishna Rana, the appellant of First Appeal No. 544 of 1999 were involved. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the District Gazette on 1.9.1990. THE Collector after hearing the parties, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.2,45,163 per katha. THE land holders, appellants filed application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act claiming that the market value of the lands acquired was Rs.15 lacs per katha. THE case of the appellants was that the land and holding under acquisition situated in the Exhibition Road in the heart of town adjacent to Chiraiyatand over-bridge and is very near to Patna Junction and further, it is a biggest business commercial centre and residential area in Patna.

(2.) THE claim of the land holders was referred to the Land Acquisition Judge. THE State of Bihar filed objection and it is stated that the Collector has rightly awarded the compensation and the market value of the land fixed by the Collector is reasonable and proper. After trial, the learned Land Acquisition Judge considering the oral as well as documentary evidences dismissed the reference case finding that the award of the Collector is reasonable and proper. (4) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Land Acquisition Judge has wrongly not appreciated the documentary evidences and dismissed the reference case. THE learned counsel submitted that the lands which were acquired is situated in the heart of the town and in these days the rate per katha is about Rs.60-70 lacs and on the date of acquisition, the valuation was Rs.18-20 lacs but the claimants claimed only Rs.15 lacs per katha. THE learned counsel further submitted that the State Government fixed the rate at Rs.8,55,000 per katha in the year 1996 of the land at Exhibition Road and charging stamp at the time of registration on the said valuation but the Collector wrongly fixed Rs.2,45,163 per katha and therefore, the impugned judgment and award are liable to be set aside and the enhanced amount as claimed by the appellant may be awarded. (5) On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar, respondent submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and award and the learned Land Acquisition Judge after considering each and every evidence available on record found that the award of the Collector is reasonable and proper and therefore, in this appeal, the same cannot be interfered with.

(3.) IN the case of State of U.P. v. Ram Kumari Devi reported in (1996) 8 Supreme Court Cases 577, the Apex Court has held that it is well settled principle that it is the duty of the Court to assess reasonable compensation. Burden is on the owner to prove the prevailing market value. Again the same view has been reiterated by the Hon"ble Supreme Court in (1996) 3 Supreme Court Cases 766(Hookiyar Singh v. Special Land Acquisition Officer).