RAMCHANDRA MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the common judgment and Award dated 02.02.2006, passed by the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge, Koderma in 753 Land Reference cases, the appellants who are land losers on account of Kesho Jalashay Project have preferred present group of appeals for enhancement of rate of compensation and for payment of the enhanced rate under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The brief facts of the case are as under:-

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned court below failed to appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence on record and thereby failed to give adequate compensation in respect of the land in question, though the land in question was having good facility of irrigation and capable of taking three crops in a year. It is further submitted that the learned court below has also not properly taken into consideration the various factors, such as, the location of the land in question, which is adjacent to the State Highway, Railway Station and the other factors, such as the educational and commercial activities in the nearby areas. It is further submitted that the learned court below has also not properly considered the fact that the Kesho Jalashay Project and the Panchkhero Jalashay Project were at the distance of about 10 kms. within the same block and having the similar quality of land. The purpose of acquisition was also the same. It is further submitted that the notification for acquisition of land in respect of Kesho Jalashay Project and Panchkhero Jalashay Project were also of the nearby period and not having a gap of more than one year. It is further submitted that the learned court below has also not properly considered the judgment delivered by this Court, wherein, compensation at the rate of Rs. 660/- per decimal was determined by this Court after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances involved in the matter. It is further submitted that the said decision was cited before the learned court below and copy thereof was also produced vide Exhibit-1 but the learned court below has not taken into consideration, the decision rendered by this Court in its proper perspective. It is further submitted that the appellants have adduced several evidences and most of the evidences produced by the appellants was relevant for the purpose of enhancement of the claim in support of their case. However, the said documentary as well as oral evidence has not been properly appreciated by the learned court below.

(3.) As against that, the learned, counsel appearing for the Respondent-State Government by referring the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent-State, submitted that the learned court below after careful consideration of the evidence on record, has passed a detailed Judgment and Award and therefore, the same is not required to be disturbed and the Award passed by the learned court below may be confirmed. It is further submitted that 24 percent enhancement has already been considered by the Land Acquisition Officer and effect thereof has been given in the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The learned counsel for the Respondent-State Government by referring the observations made by the learned court below, submitted that the learned court below has discussed the oral as well as documentary evidence on record in detail and thereafter, reached to the conclusion, which appears to be in accordance with law and therefore, the said findings may not be disturbed in the present group of first appeals.