PARVESH KUMARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above two cases have been heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment as they relate to the same dispute. LPA(C ) NO. 57/1999 arises from an order of learned Single Judge of this Court by which CIMA NO: 229/1999 preferred by the appellants against the award of theDistrict Judge -cum -Arbitrator, Jammu, dated 14 -08 -1999,was dismissed. CIMA NO. 160/2000 arises from the said award of the District Judge -cum -Arbitrator Jammu.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that 19 Kanals of land comprising Khasra No. 200/155 situate at Chak Manga Rakhwal Samba, District Jammu was acquired for the Army under the provision of Jammu and Kashmir Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act. 1968 (in short the Act). The Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, exercising the powers of Collector under the Act, after considering thereport of the Tehsildar, Samba assessed the compensation @ Rs. 22,000/ - per kanal. Not satisfied, the owners of the land, who are appellants in LPA(C ) NO. 57/1999 (hereinafter referred to as Claimants), filed application for appointment of an arbitrator in terms of Section 8(1)(b) of the Act. The District Judge, Jammu exercising the powers of the Arbitrator, ex -officio, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 50,000/ - per Kanal. He also directed that interest @ 18% per annum be paid from the date of award till its realization. The Union of India feeling aggrieved by the award has preferred appeal being CIMA No: 160/2000. Meanwhile, the Claimants, also not satisfied with the quantum awarded by the District Judge, preferred CIMA No. 229/1999, which was dismissed in limne by the learned Single Judge, as indicated above, giving rise to LPA(C ) NO. 57/1999.

(3.) THE sheet anchor of the claimants claim is the Sale deed with respect to one and a half Marlas of land sold @ Rs. 70,000/ - per Kanal. Reliance is also placed on the evidence of K. K. Gupta, Tehsildar, Samba to the effect thatthe value of the land at Chak Mango Rakhwal could be more than Rs. 50,000/ - per Kanal in the year 1985. We do not think either of the two isadequate for enhancement of the compensation. It is well settled that sale price with respect to a small parcels of land does not reflect its true value. As noticed above, a big chunk of land measuring 19 Kanals of land was acquired and the sale price of a small piece of land measuring one and a half Marlas cannot be the true index of the value of the land acquired. As far as the evidence of K. K. Gupta, Tehsildar is concerned; his evidence that the value of the land could be more than Rs. 50,000/ - was merely his opinion. There is nothing on record providing basis for such opinion. In the circumstances, we find no ground for further enhancement of the compensation amount. The appeal preferred by the claimant, in our opinion, is fit to be dismissed.