SKUAST Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment, two Civil First Appeals, one against judgment and decree dtd. 31/7/2014 passed by learned Additional District Judgment, Srinagar, bearing CFA No.224/2014 and the other against judgment dtd. 28/6/2004 read with order dtd. 30/8/2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Srinagar, bearing CFA No.138/2011, are proposed to be decided.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the filing of CFA No.138/2011 against judgment dtd. 28/6/2004 read with order dtd. 30/8/2011 passed by learned District Judge, Srinagar, are that a reference under Sec. 18 of the State Land Acquisition Act was made to the said Court on 23/1/1989 by Collector/Additional Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar, pursuant to the application filed by respondents N.2 to 7 herein. It appears that a requisition was made by appellant-University, pursuant to which land measuring 13 kanals 06 kanals situated at Shuhama Ganderbal, Srinagar, was acquired and the Collector, after conducting necessary proceedings in terms of the provisions contained in the State Land Acquisition Act, passed the final award dtd. 21/4/1988, whereby the land owners were awarded Rs.21,000.00 per kanal as compensation for the acquired land. They were also held entitled to Rs.8,99,740.00 as cost of fruit bearing trees that were standing on the acquired land. Besides this, Jabirana @15% on the cost of land and 6% interest was also awarded in favour of the land owners. The land owners claimed that the market value of the land in the vicinity of the acquired land is Rs.40,000.00 per kanal and that potential value of the land has not been taken into consideration by the Collector. It seems that the Collector did not contest the reference whereas the appellant University did contest the reference.

(3.) Vide order dtd. 15/9/1998, the learned District Judge, Srinagar, framed the following issues: 1. How much land has been taken from the petitioners and when? OPP 2. Whether the market value of the land acquired by SKUAST per kanal was Rs.40,000.00 at the time of its acquisition? OPP 3. In case issue number 2 is not proved, whether the market value was paid by SKUAST at the time of acquisition? OP Respondents.