STATE OF BIHAR Vs. BAL MUKUND PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act has been filed against the judgment and award dated 9.6.1989 passed by Land Acquisition Judge, Katihar,in Land Acquisition Case No. 50 of 1977.

(2.) It appears that the appellant acquired 1.65 acres of land of R.S. Plot No. 868 and 1.90 acres of land of R.S. Plot No. 868 and 1.90 in Mouza Harprasad, Thana 304 in the district of Katihar. The Land Acquisition Officer valued the Bhith-II land at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- per acre and orchard land at the rate of Rs. 5,200/- per acre. Plot No.673 is said to be orchard while plot No. 885 is said to be Bhith land. Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was made with the District Judge, Katihar, at the instance of respondents who alleged that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. The respondents claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 9,000/- per acre for the Bhith land and Rs. 70,000/- per acre for the orchard land. The appellant contested the claim of the respondents before the Reference Court and supported the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer.

(3.) Nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents in support of the claim. Sri Ram Nath Sharma, A.W. 1, and Sri Azam Uddin, A.W. 2, in their statements, stated that there were 30-40 mango trees, 30-35 Shisham trees and some guava and other trees in the orchard of the respondents. Sri Mohan Jha, A.W. 3 proved one sale deed (Exhibit-1) which was, however, taken back by the respondents, as such the said sale deed was not taken into account by the reference court. AW. 4, Besh Mohammad, stated that his father and uncle had jointly purchased 1.25 acres of land in the Harprashad Mouza for a consideration amount of Rs. 7,000/-. Abdul Salim, A.W. 5, stated that there were 50-60 mango trees and 40-50 Shisham trees in the orchard of the respondents. He further stated that he used to purchase the branches of Shisham trees from the respondents. Sri Pradeep Sharma, A.W. 6, is a Village Level Worker. He has stated that he had prepared cost of production of the land of the respondents in the year 1975 (Exhibit-2).A.W. 8, Sri Rameshwar Pandey, the father of the respondents, has stated that the acquired award land is fertile land. He further stated that in plot No. 673 there were large number of tree of mango, Shisham, Nariyal, guava, etc. and also some medicinal plant. He stated that the annual income from the orchard was Rs. 4,000/- by selling the fruits, Rs. 3,500/- from sale of branches of Shisham trees, Rs. 1,000/- by selling the products of medicinal plants and Rs. 1,000/- from sale of guava fruits. AW. 9, Dwarika Nath Pandey, is the brother of father of the respondents. He stated that the acquired land was of better quality. As regards orchard in plot No. 673 he stated that there were mango, shisham, Jamun, Nariyal and guava trees in the orchard and also some medicinal plants. According to his statement the annual income from the plants of harrey and other medicinal plants was Rs. 5,000/- and from selling the fruits Rs. 4,000/- and from sale of branches of Shisham trees Rs. 3,500/- and from sale of guava Rs. 1,000/-. No evidence was led on behalf of the appellant to rebut the evidence led by the respondents.