COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION Vs. BHARAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are cross appeals arising out of land acquisition proceedings. One Bharat Singh, was the land owner in village Phungali. Tehsil Akhnoor. His land was acquired for public purposes. The Collector allowed the compensation at the rate of Rs.1OO/ - per kanal treating the land as Khushki land. According to him the area acquired was 102 kanals and 19 marlas and not only 92 kanals and 18 marlas, secondly, that the land acquired was Abi land and not Khushki land as found by the Collector Thirdly that the rate of compensation assessed by the Collector was inadequate and unreasonable and did not conform to the prevailing market price.

(2.) BEFORE the learned Additional District Judge, Jammu who heard the reference, it was conceded on behalf of the State that the area acquired from Bharat Singh measured 102 kanals and 19 marlas as claimed by him. On the other two points the parties joined issue. The learned Additional District Judge has found that the land acquired was Khushki land and not Abi land. He has further found that the rate of compensation allowed at Rs.100/ -per kanal was inadequate. He enhanced the same to Rs.242/ - per kanal. The Collector has come up in appeal to this court and challenged his decision allowing the enhanced rate of compensation at Rs.242/ -per kanal. That appeal has been registered as appeal No. 4 of 1975 Bharat Singh has filed a cross appeal and challenged the decision on both points. That appeal has been numbered as appeal No. 5 of 1975. This judgement will govern the disposal of both these appeals.

(3.) WE will first deal with the question whether the land acquired is Abi land or Khushki land. On this point the parties have examined Balwan Singh, Kewal Krishen and Vishwa Nath Patwari. Balwan Singh has appeared on behalf of Bharat Singh and deposed that the land in question is an Abi land. He happens to be Ziladar of the Irrigation Department, The Collector has examined Kewal Krishen and Vishwa Nath, one of whom is a revenue patwari and the other patwari incharge canals. They have unanimously deposed that the land in question is Khushki land not Abi land. The learned Additional District Judge preferred the testimony of the patwari over that of Balwan Singh and we think, rightly so, and came to the conclusion that the land in question was khushki land and not Abi land. The reasons given by him for showing this preference are cogent and convincing. Without repeating the same we upheld his finding on this question and hold that the land in question was Khushki land and not Abi land at the relevant time.