PARAS RAM Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the appellants is directed against the judgment/award dtd. 27/8/2014 passed by the learned District Judge, Jammu ['the Reference Court'] in file No.18/LA Act titled Paras Ram and others v. Collector Land Acquisition (ACR, Jammu) and another, whereby the market rate of the acquired land in village Satwari has been enhanced from Rs.1,45,000.00 per kanal to Rs.2,07,500.00 per kanal.

(2.) The impugned award is assailed by the appellant primarily on the ground that that the Reference Court has not appreciated the factors to be taken into account in terms of Sec. 23 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, Svt. 1990 ['the Act'] for working out the true market value of the acquired land at the time of issuance of notification under Sec. 6 of the Act. It is submitted that in the absence of any rebuttal to the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the appellants, the Reference Court should have given due weightage to the evidence of the appellants in respect of market value of the land. It is stated that the Reference Court ignored the ample evidence brought on record, oral as well as documentary, to demonstrate that the market value of the land of the appellants acquired by respondent No.2 was not less than Rs.5.00 lakh per kanal. The Reference Court did not take into consideration the commercial potential of the land acquired and fixed the market value on mere conjectures and guesswork.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. Inderjeet Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG for respondent No.1 support the award passed by the Reference Court. It is submitted that the oral evidence brought on record by the appellants was self contradictory and in any case was not good enough to prove the market value of the acquired land as claimed by the appellants. The documentary evidence in the shape of sale deeds placed on record was not in reference to the date of Sec. 6 notification issued by the Collector and, therefore, was rightly not given much importance by the Reference Court. Learned counsel support the view taken by the Reference Court that in the absence of comparable sale deeds executed during the relevant period, the best way to arrive at market value of the acquired land was to give it 10% annual increase having regard to the market value of the similar land last determined in the year 1986.