(1.) This appeal by the erst -while owner of the land acquired in Land Acquisition Case No. 50/40 of 1971 against the decision of the Court passed in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act.)
(2.) It appears that a notification under Section 18 of the Act was issued on 20 -11 -1957 for the acquisition of 38. 49 acre of land situated in village Shahpur Undi, within Dalsiogh Sarai police station of the present district of Samastipur. The Land, which comprises of different plots as per details given in the notice, but is in a compact block having trees thereon. This Land, admittedly, belonged to the appellant. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the value of the land including trees @ Rs. 2,200 per acre. The appellant thereafter sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act and the matter was referred to the 1st Addl. Subordinate Judge of Samastipur, who was appointed as Special Land Acquisition Judge. Eventually, the Special Land Acquisition Judge fixed the value of the land including the trees @ Rs. 3,000 per acre. The appellant, being unsatisfied with the value determined by the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge, has come up in appeal to this Court. According to him the value of the land on the relevant date i. e. on 20 11 -1957 should be Rs. 200 to Rs. 250 per katha.
(3.) The appellant had examined a number of witnesses and bad produced a number of sale deeds in support of his claim for higher valuation. The respondent had also produced three sale deeds. The learned Special Land Acquisition Judge, on a consideration of all aspects of the matter, fixed the value of the land at Rs. 3,000 per acre after striking a balance between the rival claims put forward by the parties. In doing so, it appears that he took into account the value given in the three sale deeds (Exts. J, J/1 and J/2) which were relied upon by the respondent. The learned Judge did not feel inclined to fix the value of the land in accordance with the value given in the sale deeds filed on behalf of the appellant. He also rejected the oral evidence given by the witness examined by the appellant on the question of valuation.