MAHESH PRAKASH BHARDWAJ Vs. EX. ENGINEER, PWD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal arises out of the judgment and award dt. 21.7.99 passed by the Civil Judge (JD) Bundi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court') in Reference No. 98/97, by which the Reference Court had dismissed the Reference made under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). In the instant case it appears that the appellant -claimant was the owner of the land in question situated in the city of Bundi, which was acquired by the State Government by issuing notification under Sec. 4(1) of the said Act. The declaration was also issued under Sec. of the said Act and after following the procedure under the said Act, the Land Acquisition Officer had made an award on 28.3.95, determining the market value of the same at Rs. 17,000/ - per bigha. The appellant -claimant was also awarded the solatium and interest under the said Act. Thereafter the matter was referred to the Reference Court at the instance of the appellant under Sec. 18 of the said Act. The Reference Court dismissed the said Reference by the impugned order, against which the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) IT has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Himanshu Sharma for the appellant that the Reference Court had mis -appreciated the evidence on record, more particularly the documentary evidence produced by the appellant. According to him the claimant had produced the documents showing the price of lands which were situated adjacent to the acquired land and the Reference Court had not considered the same for the purpose of enhancing the compensation. He also submitted that the Reference Court had failed to afford sufficient opportunity to the appellant to prove his case.

(3.) HAVING regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the impugned award as well as the record of the case, it transpires that the appellant -claimant had not stepped into the witness box nor proved the documentary evidence in support of his claim. Though some photostat copies of the awards made for the lands adjacent to the acquired land were produced, the said documents were not proved by the appellants either by stepping into the witness box or any other manner permissible under the law. Under the circumstances such documents could not be said to be admissible in evidence and, therefore, could not be read in evidence, as rightly held by the Reference Court. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Reference Court. In that view of the matter, the appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.