MOHATA CONCERNS LIMITED Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment since they arise out of the same impugned order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

(2.) FACTS of the case in brief are that by notification dated 1.2.1982 published under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the State Government sought to acquire 14.81 acres of land situated at Jhumaritelaiya belonging to several recorded tenants, for the purposes of construction of buildings of the Krishi Bazar Samittee. The appellant in FA. No. 37 of 1997 namely Mohata Concerns Limited had owned and possessed

(3.) THE appellant Mohata Concerns Limited has assailed the impugned Award of the Reference court on the ground that the amount of compensation as awarded by the Reference Court was without proper basis, arbitrary and without taking into consideration the actual market value of the acquired lands by reference to the rates fetched by the adjoining lands at or about the date of notification under Sec. 4 of the Act. Learned Counsel for the appellant Mohata Concerns Limited, while referring to the evidences adduced in the proceeding, submits that besides the oral evidence of the witnesses, the appellant had also adduced documentary evidence including two sale deeds (Ext. -2 and 2/A) pertaining to the sale of the lands adjacent to the land under reference in this case and both the sale deeds were executed five months prior to the date of the notification under Sec. 4 of the Act and the lands were purchased at Rs. 20,000.00 per kattha. Furthermore, the witnesses not only of the appellant, but also of the respondents had acknowledged that the acquired lands were situated on up -lands by the side of national highway and within close proximity of the railway station, market, official and private buildings and within the municipal area with amenities of electricity and water. The Reference Judge though had found the potential value of the acquired lands as being much higher than what was assessed by the Collector on account of the location and situation of the lands within the municipal area and of its being in close proximity of other developed lands, but fixed the rate at Rs. 5,000.00 per kattha without any basis whatsoever and without appreciating the evidence in proper perspective. Learned Counsel submits further that on considering the existing market value of the land and its future potential, the Reference Judge ought to have awarded compensation at the rate of the market value, as indicated in the sale deeds (Ext. -2 and 2/A). Furthermore, the Reference Court ought to have also considered the fact that the appellant was put to an unjustified harassment of protracted delay and the repeated litigation which the appellant was constrained to undertake during the period of more than 12 years from the date of notification in getting its dispute referred to the Reference Court and as such, the Reference Judge ought to have awarded cost in favour of the appellant at least at the rate of 15% of the market value of the land.