GOVIND RAM KABU Vs. COLLECTOR, BARAMALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against an order of the District Judge, Baramulla, upholding the award of compensation made by the Collector in favour of the appellant, Gobind Ram Kabu, for his land measuring 32 kanals and 11 Marlas which was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act.

(2.) IT appears that 465 Kanals and 4 Marlas of land was acquired by the Collector in village Janbazpora Tehsil Baramulla and out of it 32 Kanals and 11 Marlas belonged to the appellant. The Collector assessed compensation at Rs. 120 per Kanal in respect of the land acquired in village Janbazpora together with the usual jabirana at the rate of 15 percent. The owners of land in that village applied to the Collector for making references under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Collector made references and it appears the learned District Judge disposed of the references on different dates. The reference made in the case of Mohammad Magery and others was disposed of on 10 -5 -1965 whereas the judgment in the case of the present appellant was delivered on 15 -2 -1966. It may be mentioned here that the Collector Baramulla, had made an award in favour of the owners of land in village Janbazpora on the same date in regard to which references were made by him under section 18 of the Lind Acquisition Act to the District Judge, Baramulla. The learned District Judge in the case of the applicant came to the conclusion that Rs. 120 per kanal was fair and reasonable compensation and affirmed the award made by the Collector. Against that order Mr. Kabu has appealed.

(3.) IN this appeal it is argued on behalf of the appellant that the learned District Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence and has erred in discarding the evidence of the witnesses who had deposed in regard to the compensation paid for the land acquired in the neighbouring villages. It was further argued that there was no valid reason for disbelieving the evidence of Lassi Lone whose testimony was relied upon by the District Judge in awarding compensation to the residents of the same village Janbazpora in another case. We have been taken through the record. The appellant had produced Ghulam Mohammed Chopan, Ahmad Chopan, Sannaullah Khan, Mohammad Farash and Lassi Lone to prove that the compensation granted by the Collector was inadequate and that he should be given at least Rs. 50O per kanal for the land acquired from him as was allowed to some other villagers in the neighbouring villages as also in village Janbazpora. The learned District Judge discarded the testimony of some of these witnesses on the score that they belonged to the neighbouring village and that the once paid for the land in the neighbouring villages could not be a criterion for assessing the price of the land in village Janbazpora, The pi ice of the land acquired in the neighbouring villages has been assessed at Rs. 500 to Rs 575 per kanal as is deposed by the witnesses in the present case. In regard to village Janbazpora Lassi Lone has deposed that he sold 9 Marlas of land for Rs. 700 to one Rehmat Ullah Shah. The learned District Judge has discarded his testimony on the ground that 9 marlas of land sold for Rs, 700 was for building purposes and therefore it fetched higher price and that the same rate could not be allowed to the appellant. The appellant did not ask the same rate which was paid to Lassi by Rehmat Ullah Shah for 9 marlas of land. This piece of land was sold for building purposes and the price paid for it was about Rs. 1500 per kanal. The appellant had produced a certified copy of the judgment delivered by the same District Judge, Baramulla, awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 500 per kanal to Mohammad Magery and others in the same village Janbazpora Tehsil Baramulla. The learned District Judge did not refer to this judgment in his order in the present case. The learned counsel for. the respondent argued that the learned District Judge has rightly ignored his previous judgment inasmuch as that judgment was not relevant and could not be relied upon. It is submitted that the judgment did not come within the ambit of sections 40, 41 and 42 of the Evidence Act, and therefore it could not be relied upon. It is true that the judgment awarding compensation to Mohd. Magrey and others at the rate of Rs. 500 per kanal would not be relevant under sections 40, 41 and 42 but it would certainly be so under section 43 of the Evidence Act. Section 43 of the Evidence Act reads as under : - "Judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in sections 40, 41 and 42, are irrelevant, unless the existence of such judgment, order or decree is a fact in issue, or is relevant under some other provision of this Act."