KHOSI MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the above 14 First Appeals have been filed by the land holder, claimants against the common judgment and award dated 25.03.1987 passed by Sri Anwar Ahmad, the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif in L.A. Case Nos.27, 35, 11, 45, 36, 19, 25, 53, 34, 12, 10, 30, 16 and 54, all of 1987 respectively.

(2.) IT appears that total 29 acres 18 decimals of land of village Kamarpur was acquired in Land Acquisition Case No.3 of 1983-84. The land belonged to different persons. IT appears that 91 awards were prepared in the name of different land holders. All of them filed objection under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. All the objections under Section 18 of the L.A. Act were referred to the Land Acquisition Judge giving rise to 91 land acquisition reference cases. All the 91 land acquisition reference cases were disposed of by the common judgment and award as all of them tried together and one set of evidence was adduced by the claimants. Many of the claimants filed First Appeals against the award of the Land Acquisition Judge claiming enhancement. Some of the First Appeals were disposed of by the Lok Adalat. These 14 First Appeals also arises out of the same common judgment and award. Therefore, all the First Appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by the common judgment.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned S.C. 6 submitted that the First Appeals which were disposed of by the Lok Adalat cannot be considered while disposing of these First Appeals on merit. The very very small amounts were involved in those First Appeals because very small areas were acquired of some of the land holders. In some First Appeals, the excess enhancement amount claimed was Rs.4,000 or Rs.5,000 etc. In the present case, the lands involved are of large are and, therefore, the compensation which were awarded with respect to small area of land cannot be equated with the larger area of land and moreover, there is no evidence that the lands involved in those First Appeals are same and similar to the lands involved in these First Appeals. The land holders never prayed that the First Appeals be decided by the Lok Adalat and moreover now after such a long period, the State of Bihar is not agreeable for referring the case to Lok Adalat. The learned counsel further submitted that the Land Acquisition Judge has considered minutely the oral evidences and also the documentary evidences produced by the parties and has enhanced the compensation. There is no material before the Court to show that the lands acquired could have fetched more price than the award made by the Land Acquisition Judge and, therefore, the First Appeals are liable to be dismissed.