ANIL KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed against the Judgment dated 11.12.1987 (Award signed on 4.1.1988) passed by the Subordinate Judge -cum -Land Acquisition Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, by which he raised the rate of compensation of the acquired lands from Rs. 16, 900/ -per acre to Rs. 1,00,000/ - (one lakh) and also awarded 15% interest over the amount as also interest(r) 6% per annum from the date of the communication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') till the date of taking possession or making award by the Collector, whichever is earlier.

(2.) The relevant facts concerning this appeal are that by notification No. D.L.A. 32/77 -1713R dated 1.6.1977 39 Dec. of land of plot No. 663, under khata No. 22, of village Uchari Mohall Garhwa town, district Palamau was acquired by the Collector, Palamau, for agricultural marketing yard at Garhwa. The Collector awarded compensation in L.A. Case No. 161 /74 of 1979 in respect of the aforesaid lands, according to which the market value of the acquired land was determined at Rs. 16, 900/ - per acre a d besides that a sum of Rs. 9,360, 00 paise was awarded on account of the construction of house up to plinth level area found over the acquired lands and a sum of Rs. 4,875/ - was awarded on account of a well, which was in existence over the land; besides that, additional compensation and interest @ 6% were also awarded and, thus, a total sum of Rs. 24, 309.15 paise was awarded as compensation to the claimant -appellant. On objection being raised, the matter was referred to the Land Acquisition Judge, Daltonganj, under Section 18 of the Act. The learned Land Acquisition Judge, on such reference, determined the market price of the land at Rs. 1,000 (One thousand) per Decimal and awarded additional compensation @ Rs 15% over the price of the land together with interest(r) 6% per annum from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act till the date of taking possession or making award whichever is earlier. Being aggrieved with and dissatisfied by the impugned Judgment and award the present appeal has been tiled on the ground that the learned Land Acquisition Judge has not determined the price at the market value of the acquired lands in accordance with law and has also omitted to give compensation for the construction which admittedly existed unit. Therefore, earned Counsel submitted that the impugned order is illegal, which is liable to be set aside and the price of the acquired lands deserves to be determined in accordance with law and the appellant should also be compensated for the construction and should be given solatium and interest as per the law.

(3.) The point which arises for my consideration in this appeal is as to whether the award given by the learned Land Acquisition Judge is correct and can be legally sustained or not?