KAMLA DEVI Vs. B S F JODHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals : one by the claimant Smt. Kamala Devi and other filed by the Border Security Force, Jodhpur arise out of the judgement of the learned Civil Judge, Jodhpur dated 24-4-1974 in a reference made to him under S.18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act ('the Act' herein).

(2.) The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this reference briefly stated are : that the Border Security Force, Jodhpur (for short 'the B.S.F.') required some land at Jodhpur for the establishment of its unit and Staff Training College. The Government of Rajasthan issued a notification under S.4 of the Act on 9-9-1970 and ultimately a notice was served on the claimant Smt. Kamla Devi, owner of the land on 5-10-1970 issued by the Land Acquisition Officer. The land is situated just near the Balsamand. It is measuring about 38 bighas and 15 biswas comprising of Khasras Nos. 1514, 1514/1, 1599 and 1600/1. This land was purchased by Smt. Kamla Devi from one Johrimal Parakh on 13-6-1968 by a registered sale deed for a sum of Rs. 31,000/-. Smt. Kamla Devi filed her claim before the Land Acquisition Officer. Shri Johrimal also filed the claim and his compensation was separately assessed. However, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded a compensation of Rs. 51,630/- to the claimant Smt. Kamla Devi vide his award dated 23-7-71. He awarded a sum of Rs. 40,300/- as the cost of the land as well as of the well, Rs. 4030/- as 10% solatium Rs. 2700/- as the cost of manure and Rs. 4600/as the cost of machine and fittings. Aggrieved against this award, the claimant Smt. Kamla Devi filed an application under S.18 of the Act for making reference to the competent court. On the basis of this application, a reference was made by the learned Land Acquisition Officer vide his order dated 11-11972 to the Court of learned Civil Judge, Jodhpur. When the reference came up before the learned Civil Judge, the State of Rajasthan also filed cross-objections. The contention of the claimant Smt. Kamla Devi has been that this land has a potentiality of buildings site and, therefore, compensation should have been awarded at the rate of Re. 1/- per sq. yard (2' x 2' = 1 yard). According to the petitioner, the measurement of the land is 1,68,795 sq. yards and, therefore, a sum of Rs. 1,68,795/- should have been awarded to her as compensation for the value of the land. She has claimed Rs. 50,748/- as the cost and improvements made on the well. A sum of Rs. 11,907/- has been claimed for stagging, iron ladder Girders Chain Kuppi ete. She has claimed Rs. 7,388/- for the structures (Houses and out houses), Rs. 4,944/- for water Haudies and Reservior, Rs. 18,999/- for irrigation channels, Rs. 858/- for approach road and Rs. 536/- stone slabs and stone walls etc. Thus, in all, a sum of Rs. 1,10,784 has been claimed against the cost of structures. Thus, she has claimed Rs. 1,68,795/- as the value of the land + Rs. 1,10,784/- as the cost of structure = Rs. 2,79,579. She has claimed a sum of Rs. 27,957/- as 10% solatium on this amount. Thus, in all, she has claimed a sum of Rs. 3,07,536. Out of this amount, she had deducted Rs. 44,330/-, which have already been allowed to her by the Land Acquisition Officer and, therefore, in the application that has been made under S.18 of the Act for making a reference, she has staked her claim for a sum of Rs. 2,63,206/- Along with the petition, she has filed Schedule-A which has been prepared by the Executive Engineer. The State of Rajasthan also filed cross-examinations (cross-objections ?), in which, it was pleaded that Smt. Kamla Devi is only a Khatedar tenant of the land and the State is its land-holder and, therefore, the amount of compensation should have been apportioned between the State and the Claimant Smt. Kamla Devi. It was objected by the petitioner (Claimant) Smt. Kamla Devi that. this claim made by the State is time barred and does not fall within the scope of reference.

(3.) On the basis of these pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : 1. Whether the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer does not represent in law a fair and just compensation for the land acquired ? 2. Whether in determining a fair and just compensation the land should be treated as a building site ? If so, to what rate the petitioner is entitled to as compensation ? 3. Should the land acquired be valued at the rates mentioned in paras 10, 11 and 12 of the reference petition ? and is the petitioner entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,68,795/- plus solatium as value of the land ? 4. Is the petitioner entitled to a higher rate on the grounds mentioned in paras 13 and 14 of the reference petition ? 5. If the land is treated as agricultural land then whether the land should be valued at the rate mentioned in paras 15 and 16 of the reference petition ? 6. Is the estimate of Rs. 76,739/- prepared by the Department (B.S.F.) and filed before the L.A.O. not binding on the non-petitioners ? 7. Whether the L.A.O. was justified in refusing to award compensation for structures as per the estimate submitted by the Department ? 8. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,10,784/- as the value of the structures etc. as detailed in para 17 of the reference petition ? 9. Is the petitioner entitled to the costs of the acquisition proceedings ? 10. Whether the petitioner cannot be awarded compensations for the additional items taken from her ? 11. Whether the Land Acquisition Officer did not make proper enquiry in accordance with law ? If so, what would be its effect ? 12. To what relief, the petitioner is entitled. Additional issues : 1. Whether the compensation claimed by the applicant is liable to be appropriated in between the State and the Claimant, if yes, what ratio ? 2. Whether the cross-objection of the State is time barred and does not fall within the scope of the reference ? In support of these issues, the claimant petitioner has examined P.W. 1 Narsingh, P.W. 2 Vidhya Sagar, P.W. 3 Magraj, P.W. 4 Jitendra Singh, P.W. 5 Sohanlal and P.W. 6 Raghuveer Singh, from the side of the non-petitioners, D.W. 1 Satya Prakash, D.W. 2 Bhagwati Prasad and D.W. 3 Manak Mal were examined but his statement could not be completed and, therefore, that statement could not be considered.