COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION, BARAMULLA Vs. JUGMOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order and decree dated 31.12.2002, passed by District Judge Baramulla upon a reference made to him under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter called the Act), by the Collector (ACR) Baramulla.

(2.) IT appears that Collector Land Acquisition issued notification under Section 4 of the Act for acquisition of the land measuring 44 kanals and 18 1/2 marlas for construction of satellite market at Kanipora Baramulla on 22.4.1999. The notification under Secs. 6 & 7 was issued by the Government on 28.7.1999, and notification under Sec. 9, 9(a) being issued on 19.8.1999, the land owners in order to show what was the market value produced and relied upon five sale deeds before the Collector. The Collector Land Acquisition also visited the spot and in his tentative award fixed the market value at the rate of Rs. 3.00 lacs per kanal for the land measuring 14 kanals and 10 marlas which was admittedly on the National Highway and at the rate of Rs. 2.00 lacs per kanal for the other land measuring 30 kanals and 8 1/2 marlas. This tentative award, on being approved by the Government, was made the Final Award. The respondents are the owners of the land measuring 14 kanals and 10 marlas situated on the Highway. They did not accept the rate fixed for assessment of compensation for their land by the Collector, so moved an application before the Collector for making a reference to the District Judge in terms of Section 18 of the Act. The respondents claimed compensation at the rate more than 6 lacs per kanal on the ground that the land being on the National Highway possessed great potential for being used commercially and was in fact being used by them for running a Band -saw and joinery mill and they had also installed a trolly in the structure raised by them which carried the market value of about 75 lacs. By the acquisition thus they claimed that they have lost their business too. However, the appellate Collector supported his award. Learned trial court framed 8 issues for determination, out of the pleadings of the parties. Out of which issue No.(vi) is material which reads as follows: -

(3.) LEARNED A.A.G. counsel for the appellants argued that the trial court has erred in placing reliance on the sale deeds and permission letter of Divisional Commissioner for determining the market value as these had no proximity with the time of acquisition. The sale deeds were sham transactions crated for enhancement of the value while the land mentioned in the permission of Divisional Commissioner was situated in a different area having different potential. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that no such error is there in the judgment of the trial court.