STATE OF BIHAR Vs. JEHAL MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS batch consists of seventy appeals filed by the State of Bihar. In forty-four of these appeals, cross-objections have been preferred by the respondents. These appeals and cross-objections are directed against an order passed by the Laud Acquisition Judge on the 21st of April, 1961 in references made by the Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It may be mentioned here that there were seventy-one references 'before the Civil Court, and seventy-one appeals had originally been filed in this Court, out of which, one appeal, numbered as First Appeal No. 367 of 1961, has gone out of the list for certain defects. The facts, shortly speaking, are as follows. 59.31 acres of land had been acquired by the State for the sub-divisional agricultural farm at Biharshariff under the Land Acquisition Act. The area covered by the references came to 21.60 acres only. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on the 21st of March, 1956. Possession was, however, taken under Section 17 of the Act on the 15th of April 10,57. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation to the occupiers of the agricultural lands at the rate of Rs. 770/- per acre. The lands were treated as Class TT "Dhanhar lands. Some compensation for trees was also allowed. The awardees filed objections under Section 18 of the Act and hence the references arose.

(2.) BEFORE the learned Judge, the awardees 'in most of the cases claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 200/- to Rs. 400/- per katha and some claimed compensation even at higher rates. The learned Judge held that there was no satisfactory evidence regarding the annual income from the lands acquired, except the oral and uncorroborated testimony of the claimants, and, therefore, that evidence could not be relied upon for ascertaining the market value of the property. Then, the learned Judge proceeded to value the properties upon the footing of certain transactions with respect to the lands in the neighbourhood. In that context, reliance was placed before the learned Land Acquisition Judge by the State on three sale deeds (Exts. F,F/1) and F/2). On behalf of the awardees-claimants, several documents were relied upon, including a sale deed marked as Ext. 2. The learned Judge has held that the three sale deeds relied upon on behalf of the State were not suitable deeds for the purpose of ascertaining the market value of the acquired lands. From the documents relied upon by the claimants, the learned Judge has held that Ext. 2, the sale deed dated the 30th January, 1956, furnished sufficient data for arriving at the market value of the acquired lands. It has thus been held that the claimants would be entitled to compensation according to the rate mentioned in Ext. 2. By a slight error of calculation, the learned Judge has held that the sale rate from Ext" 2 comes to about Rs. 2,400/- per acre. This figure should be, on a proper calculation, Rs. 2,500/- per acre. According to the learned Judge, moreover the lands acquired in this case could not be said to fall under class IT Dhanhar lands, but that they should be classified as class I land. Thus, the compensation regarding the lands has been, determined upon Ext. 2 alone. It appears that an objection was taken before the learned Judge, on behalf of the State, under Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act to the effect that those awardees who had not filed petitions of claim before the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 9 of the Act were not entitled to ask the learned Judge to enhance their compensation beyond the amounts awarded by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act. This contention has been rejected by the learned Judge on the ground that when a reference has been made by the Collector to the Civil Court, such an objection was not entertainable by Court. Reliance was placed on the decision in Sri Venkateswaraswami Varu. v. Sub-Collector, Bezwada, AIR 1943 Mad 327.

(3.) MR. G. S. Prasad appearing for the respondents in nine first appeals has submitted that, although his clients have not filed cross-objections, they ought to get the benefit of the conclusions arrived at in favour of the cross-objectors, and that the compensation to be awarded to these respondents should also be at the rate of Rs. 3,000/-per acre for the lands acquired. It is urged that all the land acquisition references arose out of same proceeding and the cross-objections filed in this Court regarding the market value of the property go to the root of the case and reliefs ought to be given to these respondents as well, although they have not filed cross-objections, if the cross-objections succeed to any extent. Reliance is placed on Order 41, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and upon a decision of the Federal Court in the case of Sir Hari Sankar Pal v. Anath Nath Mitter, AIR 1949 FC 106, I do not, however, think that the argument advanced by MR. Prasad is valid. So far as the appeals in which MR. Prasad appeared (First Appeals Nos. 310, 325, 327. 333, 335. 338, 341, 369 and 378), the contest is between the State, who is the appellant in each case and the particular claimants, who are the respondents. It is not possible to hold that these respondents can have the compensation awarded to them increased, in view of the conclusions in the cross-objections, if these appeals by the State are going to be dismissed against the respondents, on the ground that the appellant has failed to show why the market value of the acquired lands, arrived at by the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge, should be decreased. The other appeals filed by the State against the other respondents are quite independent and separate appeals, in which some respondents have filed cross-objections and some have not. In my opinion, the decision of their Lordships of the Federal Court, AIR 1949 FC 106, is entirely distinguishable on its facts. In that case, there was one decree which was the subject-matter of appeal, and it was held that Order 41, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was attracted on its facts. I am, therefore, not in a position to accept the contention of MR. Prasad that under Order 41, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the compensation awarded to his clients should be increased, even if the appeals by the State fail. (His Lordship then again discussed the evidence in para 12:)