First Appeal No.106 OF 1985 (Against the judgment and award dated 19.12.1984 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 66/82/27/83 by Shri Gauri Shankar Choudhary, 1st Additional District Judge, Gaya). SUBIR KUMAR SENGUPTA, son of Anand Mayi Sengupta, resident of Mahabir Colony, Near I.B. of B.S.E.B.(EAST) CHANDAULI MORE, P.S. RAMPUR, DISTRICT-GAYA----------------------------------(Appellant) VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR---------------------------------------(Respondent ----------------- For the appellant: Mr. Kaushal Kumar, advocate Mr. G.C. Thakur, advocate For the State: Mr. K.K. Sinha No.1 Mr. C.K. Sinha (G.P., 1) ------------------ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA VERMA P.C. Verma,J. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the award made by the 1st Additional District Judge, Gaya dated 19.12.1984 made in Land Acquisition Case No. 66 of 1982/ 27/83. The facts of this case, in short, is that under the Housing Scheme of the House Board of the State Government an area of 2.27 acres land in plot No.74 and 1.96 acres in plot No.75 belonging to applicant Smt. Anand Mayi Sengupta situated at village Mustafabad, P.S. Civil Lines, District- Gaya have been acquired by the State Government, under the provision of the land Acquisition Act. A notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 5.12.1974 and declaration under Section 6 was published on 1.7.1975. Treating both the lands of Bhith, the Collector of Gaya has made on sword bearing no.50 dated 10.12.1980 in favour of the applicant for Rs. 1, 04, 878.62 paise as compensation for those lands including compensation at the rate of 15% for compulsory nature of the acquisition. The applicant has received the amount of compensation under protest claiming higher amount, besides compensation at the rate of 25% by way of potential value for her lands. Her case is that the lands in question were quite valuable and fertile with good irrigation facility. They were situated by the side of the expending city of Gaya where Anugrah Puri colony is growing fast. As a matter of fact, at the time when the notification was issued, lands of similar nature were sold in the locality of the rate of Rs. 12, 000/- per katha. The plot Nos. 74 and 75 of village-Mustafabad, P.S. Civil Lines, District- Gaya was acquired by the State Government. The notification was published on 5.12.1974. This is the relevant date for determining the market value of the land under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned District Judge has ignored the exemplar relied by the appellant exhibit-2 which is a sale deed dated 11.05.1972 and by means of the sale deed, the appellant has sold the portion of one Katha of the land to the husband of Smt. Manti Devi. This land was also acquired by the same notification published on the same date along with the land of the appellant. Smt. Manti Devi has been paid compensation at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per Katha by the same Reference Court vide award contained in exhibit-3. The learned Patna High Court, Patna, dated 18th April,.2011. N.A.F.R./RAVI/- Reference Court has not given any cogent reason for ignoring the award made by the same Reference Court for the part of the land except that after the sale was executed, the house was constructed by the purchaser. It does not stand to reason that for the same plot i.e. 74, for one recorded tenure holder rate is fixed differently than that of the other person i.e. the claimant. Thus, the fixing of rate by the Reference Court in respect of plot No.74 at the rate of Rs. 666/- per decimal is unreasonable. Therefore, the rate fixed by the Reference Court is hereby set aside in respect of plot No.74 and it is held that the appellant shall be entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per Katha in respect of Plot No.74. So far as the fixation of rate on the basis of award made by the Reference Court relying on exhibit-3/a which was an award by the Reference Court in favour of Mr Narayan Mahto is correct. However, it is clarified that if the rate of Mr Narayan Mahto is increased by any higher court than that of Reference Court, the appellant shall be entitled for the same rate. The appellant shall be given benefit of pendency of this appeal in accordance with provisions of Amendment Act of 1984 as admissible to the appellant. Thus, this appeal is partly allowed. No order as to cost. (Prakash Chandra Verma, J.)