STATE OF BIHAR Vs. NITYANAND SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26.7.88 passed by Subordinate Judge I, Chaibasa in Land Acquisition Reference Case no. 40(34)85 through which compensation of the acquired land was fixed at the rate of Rs.20,000/ - per acre.

(2.) THE fact, in short, giving rise to this appeal is that an area of 2.33 acres of land appertaining to plot no. 700 in khata no. 33 of Mouza Moubhandar P.S. Ghatshila, Dist. Singhbhum was acquired by the State Govt. for the purpose of construction of Divisional Colony of Subarnarekha Project at Moubhandar. Necessary notification u/s. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was duly published on 4.3.81 and immediately 2.33 acres of the aforesaid plot no. 700 was acquired and the award was prepared on 26.3.85 and on the basis of the annual average product of the crop, the value of the acquired land was assessed at Rs.3210/ - per acre and as such a sum of Rs.9723.09 P. as was awarded as compensation to the claimant.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied. the applicant -respondent file objection claiming that the acquired land had a potential value because it is very contiguous to urban area of Moubhandar where there is' office and quarters of Hindustan Copper Ltd. and near to the acquired land there is the residence of S.D.O. Ghatshila and various other officials and schools. So more or less it is a homestead land situated near the urban area and in any view of the matter, the market value of the acquired land will not be less than Rs.1.50 lakhs per acre at the time of acquisition. The learned Subordinate Judge after evidence of the parties and on the basis of rate chart prepared by the Land Acquisition Deptt., that is. the various sale deed executed near about the date of notification had relied upon a sale deed of the year 1980 which was executed by the claimant himself in respect of the other portion of the acquired plot itself and fixed the market value of the land at Rs.20,000/ - per acre and ordered for payment of compensation at that rate besides 30% solatium and interest @ 9% per annum on the excess compensation amount from 'the date of taking of the possession. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with this order, the State Govt. preferred this appeal and has challenged the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge mainly on the ground that there was no basis for enhancement of the compensation amount.