STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND) Vs. KRISHNA MAHATO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant State against judgment and award dated 31.8.1994 and 21.9.1994 respectively, passed by the learned Sub Judge, I, Daltonganj, Palamau in connection with LA Case No. 9 of 1991.

(2.) FACTS of the case, in brief, giving rise to this appeal as appears from the record is that the land and house measuring 1.33 - 2/3 acres was notified on 22.12.1975 for acquisition for construction of a road (Balumath Murpa -Lapra Road) under section 4 of the Bihar Land Acquisition Act. Possession of the land and the house were take by the PWD (Road) Department in the year 1976 and the land acquisition proceeding was dropped on 3.11.1976 by the Land Acquisition Officer, Palamau, under the provision of the new Amendment in the Land Acquisition Act. Thereafter, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court against the order of the land acquisition officer Palamau vide CWJC No. 2040 of 1990 R in which the High Court passed an order on 10.1.1991 directing the 2 respondents to file a petition for reference under section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act and hence the matter came to the court of learned Sub Judge 1. The learned Sub Judge -I after hearing the parties and admitting the evidence decided the compensation at the rate of Rs. 6, 500/ - per decimal and the value of the house at Rs. 17,632/ - and the pucca well and tree(s) were estimated to the tune of Rs. 1000/ - (one thousand ). Appellants were further directed to be paid Rs 15,000/ - against loss of vegetable crops, etc. per year since 1976 onward till the date of the said order dated 31.8.1994. Besides the above, the respondents/applicants were also held entitled for solatium @ 30% under section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act with interest @ 12% per annum out of the amount and excess compensation from the date of possession of land till the date of payment as required. The award was accordingly prepared and signed on 21.9.1994.

(3.) THE appellant State has challenged the impugned judgment and award on the ground that the Award passed by the learned court below is bad in law and based on untenable reasonings. The value of the land assessed by the learned court below is on the higher side and without any basis. The respondent applicant has failed to bring on record that he was earning Rs.5, 000/ - per year by growing vegetables,crops etc.