Patna High Court
Arun Kumar Tiwary & Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 29 January, 2013
Author: Mungeshwar Sahoo
Bench: Mungeshwar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
First Appeal No.198 of 1982
Against the judgment and award dated 19.2.1982 passed by the
learned Land Acquisition Judge, Bhagalpur in L.A. Case No. 2 of
1977.
===========================================================
Arun Kumar Tiwary & Ors.
.... .... Claimants-Appellants
Versus
The State Of Bihar
.... .... Objector-Respondent
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. S.N. Rai, Senior Advocate.
Mr. Krishna Mohan, Advocate.
Mr. Pravin Kumar, Advocate with him.
For the Respondent : None.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO
CAV JUDGMENT
Date: 29-01-2013
Mungeshwar 1. The original claimant has filed this first appeal against the
Sahoo, J.
judgment and decree dated 19.2.1982 passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, Bhagalpur in L.A. Case No. 2 of 1977. It appears that 5.80 acres of Bhith land of the appellant was acquired for Bikramshila Excavation in Land Acquisition Case No. 5 of 1973 -
74. The notification was issued in the year 1974. The appellants were paid Rs.62,926.24 paise as compensation for the said acquired land. The appellant received the same on protest and filed application claiming enhanced compensation under Section 18 of the Land Patna High Court FA No.198 of 1982 dt.29-01-2013 2 Acquisition Act.
2. According to the appellant the lands acquired were fertile land and wheat, gram, barly and maize crops were grown. The yearly income of the appellant was Rs. 5000/- per bigha and, therefore, the appellant claimed compensation @ Rs.15,000/- per bigha. He also claimed Rs.6000/- for Mango trees.
3. Objection was filed by the State of Bihar. Mainly it is contended that the land was not agricultural land rather there were high tilas in various shapes. The appellant never filed any objection under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act in spite of notice and the claim of the appellant regarding equality of land is incorrect.
4. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidences the trial court dismissed the same recording finding that the award given by the Collector is quite proper and justified.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court has not properly considered the oral evidences and documentary evidences. The appellant produced the sale deeds Ext.1, 2 and 3 but the trial court discarded the said sale deeds wrongly. The learned counsel further submitted that certified copies of the judgment of other land acquisition cases were filed which have been marked as Patna High Court FA No.198 of 1982 dt.29-01-2013 3 Ext.5 to 5(b) but the same documents were also not relied upon. According to the learned counsel the Land Acquisition Judge should have allowed the claim of the appellant. Ext. 6 has been filed which is judgment in Land Acquisition Case No. 15 of 1976 by which lands of similar nature were acquired and compensation was given at the rate of Rs.19,000/- per bigha.
6. As stated above, nobody appeared on behalf of the State of Bihar.
7. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the appellant the point for determination is, as to whether the appellants have been able to prove that the compensation offered by the land acquisition officer is inadequate and the lands are capable of fetching higher market value and whether the judgment and award passed by the land acquisition judge is sustainable in the eye of law.
8. Five witnesses have been examined by the appellant. Although the State of Bihar has not examined any witness. Ext. A and B i.e. Khatiyan have been filed. The witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiffs i.e. PW 1 has stated about the crops produced in the acquired land and the yearly income from the same. Likewise the other witnesses have stated about the same fact. From perusal of evidence of PW 4 it appears that he has admitted that the acquired Patna High Court FA No.198 of 1982 dt.29-01-2013 4 land is rocky land. Moreover, on the basis of the oral evidences only compensation or the rate of land cannot be fixed particularly when the lands were acquired in the year 1974 and the witnesses deposed many years after the acquisition.
9. So far the documentary evidence is concerned it appears that the nature of the land involves in the three sale deeds are different than the lands acquired here. As stated above PW-4 himself has admitted in the present case that the land is rocky land. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon unreported decision of this Court in First Appeal No. 235 of 1981 disposed of on 27th October 1987 and submitted that in that case also the lands were acquired in the year 1974 and compensation at Rs. 19,000/- per acres was awarded. From perusal of the said judgment it appears that in that case the lands were of Antichak whereas in the present case the lands acquired are in Mauza Uniswa. In that case, the State of Bihar was the appellant whereas in the present case the claimants have claimed enhanced compensation. From perusal of the said judgment of this Court it is not clear that what was the nature of the land acquired in that case. It appears that in that case it was found that Ext.2/A was a sale deed which was produced by the claimants and it was found that the nature of the lands acquired and the nature of the land covered under Ext.2/A are similar and situated in the boundary Patna High Court FA No.198 of 1982 dt.29-01-2013 5 of the land sold and therefore, the Land Acquisition Judge rightly fixed the rate on the basis of the sale deed Ext.2(a). In the present case there is no evidence that the lands acquired and the lands sold through Ext.1, 2, 3 are same and similar. Likewise the awards Ext.5 series are also of different land of different villages. There is nothing on record that the nature of the lands covered on those awards are similar to the nature of the lands acquired. From perusal of the judgment of the Land Acquisition Judge it appears that the Land Acquisition Judge has considered these aspects of the mater and held that the nature of the lands covered under these awards and the sale deeds are not the same to the lands acquired.
10. In the case of Ahamdabad Municipal Corporation vs. Shardaben 1996 (8) SCC 93 the Apex Court has held that the burden is always on the claimants to prove by adducing reliable evidence that the compensation offered by the land acquisition officer is inadequate and the lands are capable of fetching higher market value. It is the duty of the court to closely scrutinize the evidence, apply the taste of prudent and willing purchaser i.e. whether he would be willing to purchase in open and normal market conditions of the acquired lands and then determine just and adequate compensation. Same view has been taken by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Ram Kumari 1996 (8) SCC 577 and 1996 (3) SCC 766 Hookiyar Patna High Court FA No.198 of 1982 dt.29-01-2013 6 Singh vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Moradabad.
11. In view of the above settled proposition of law it was for the claimants to have satisfactorily proved before the Court that the nature of the land acquired is similar to the nature of the lands sold or for which awards have been made. Here the basic distinction is that the nature of the land defers. Therefore, it cannot be said that irrespective of the nature of the land, the claimants are entitled to get the compensation in the same rate which was awarded in respect of other lands which is entirely different.
12. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case the point formulated is answered against the appellants. In my opinion, the State of Bihar has given adequate compensation to the claimants for the lands acquired and, therefore, the Land Acquisition Judge has rightly dismissed the claim. I therefore, find no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant.
13. In the result, this first appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Patna High Court, (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.) Patna. Date : 29.01.2013 S.S./N.A.F.R.