STATE OF BIHAR Vs. CHANDRADIP YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These seven appeals have been preferred by the State of Bihar against the decision of the court given on reference under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'.) It appears that a notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was published on 22.5.1969 acquiring 3.385 acres of land forming parts of plot No. 162 and 182 of the village Deodharpur and portions of plot Nos. 206, 207, 208 and 209 of village Jainandanbigha within Tekari Police Station. The entire acquired land is in one compact block and the acquisition was made for construction of Tekari Power House. The land -holders had claimed compensation at the rate of 40,000/ - per acre but the Collector allowed at the rate of Rs. 3007 per acre. On reference under Sec. 18 of the Act the court determined the value of the land at Rs. 13500/ - per acre. Being aggrieved by the enhancement of the compensation by the learned Judge, the State of Bihar has preferred these appeals.

(2.) It appears that the learned Judge has determined the market price on the basis of the sale -deed dated 20.12.1966 (Ext -1). This sale deed was in respect of a portion of Plot No. 209, some portions of which plot are involved in First Appeal Nos. 391 and 304. Through this sale deed 3 -3/4 decimals of land out of the aforesaid plot No. 209 of Jainandanbigha was sold for Rs. 500/ - which would come to about Rs. 135/ - per decimal or Rs. 13500/ - per acre. The Collector, on the other hand, had determined the market price at Rs. 3007/ - per acre on the basis of the sale deeds mentioned at serial Nos. 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the sale statement prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer. The learned Judge, however, did not think it proper to place reliance on these sale deeds as they in substance were exchange transactions and not pure and simple sale transactions as stated by A. W. 9. The learned Judge, appears to have accepted this evidence as A. W. 9 was supported by the circumstance that the area of the lands covered by serial Nos. 20 and 21 were equal to the area of the lands covered by serial Nos. 18 and 19 and were executed in close proximity - -the first two on 29.1.1968 and the last two on 31.1.1968. The Land Acquisition Officer, on the basis of whose report, the value was determined by the Collector, was not examined in the case and the three witnesses examined on behalf of the State were evidently incompetent witnesses, as none of them was present when the verification was done at the spot by the Land Acquisition Officer, and had anything to do with the preparation of the sale statement.. So, there was no denial of the assertions made by A. W. 9 and the learned counsel appearing for the State could not show as to why the finding of the learned Judge should be disturbed in this regard.

(3.) If the sale deeds mentioned at serial Nos. 18, 19, 20 and 21 were really exchange transactions and not sale pure and simple as found by the learned Judge, he was quite justified in excluding them from consideration while determining the market value. The learned Judge has also given cogent reasons for excluding other sale deeds referred to in the sale statement. In fact, they themselves were not relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer or the Collector.