IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA FA No.112 of 1996 STATE OF BIHAR. …………APPELLANT. Versus NARESH NONIA, S/O SRI NARAYAN NONIA, AT VILLAGE-BUDHACHAK KATIHAR, P.S.AND DISTRICT-KATIHAR. …………APPLICANT-RESPONDENT. ----------- For the Appellant : A.C. to G.P.-I. For the Respondents : Sri Indradeo Pd. Yadav,Advocate ----------- P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA Order (10.03.2011) Mihir Kr. Jha, J. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant-State of Bihar has questioned the correctness of judgment and award dated 29.09.1995 in L.A Case No. 6 of 1989, wherein, the Land Acquisition Judge having made an over all assessment of the evidence adduced before him by the claimant respondent-land holder, has fixed market price of the acquired land @ 90,000/- per acre. 3. Facts, which are not in dispute and would be sufficient to dispose of this appeal are that in the year 1986, when the State needed land to improve its embankment on the river Kosi, it acquired 0.85 acres of land for which notification under Section-4, declaration under Section-6 and notices 2 under Section-9(3)of Land Acquisition Act, 1834, hereunder referred to as the Act were issued in the year 1986 and in fact, possession also was taken from the respondent-land holder on 02.12.1986. The Collector under the Act, however had awarded compensation @ Rs. 5000/- per acre and the total amount for 0.85 acre including the statutory interest was Rs. 7073.70/-. The respondent-land holder, thereafter accepted the payment under protest and had sought reference under Section 18 of the Act which gave rise to L.A Case No. 6 of 1989. 4. The respondent-land holder, in support of his case had led both oral and documentary evidence and had tried to make out his case of being awarded compensation @ Rs 3,00,000/- per acre. For this purpose, he had relied on documentary evidence in form of 4 sale deeds, apart from the oral evidence to show the proximity of the land being of utmost value, to the one for which an award was made in L.A Case No. 10 of 1988 @ Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre. 5. The Court below, however had discarded the documentary evidence in form 3 of Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-1/A in two sale deeds of the year 1986, for the same area on the ground that they were for a very small piece of land. It had also rejected the other two sale deeds i.e Exhibit-1/B and Exhibit-1/C, on the ground of its being not relevant as they were of the date, after notification under Section-4 was issued in the present case. Similarly, on making the analysis of the scope of award of L.A Case No. 10 of 1988, the Court was of the view that the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre could not be made applicable in the case of respondent-land holder, inasmuch as, the quality and land of that case inasmuch as was much better it had a better connectivity in terms of approach road in comparison to the land in question involved in this appeal. 6. The Court below, however having taken all these materials into consideration had made its own assessment and had fixed Rs. 90,000/- per acre. 7. Counsel for the appellant State of Bihar while assailing the aforementioned approach and resultant findings of the Court 4 below in the impugned judgment has primarily contended that once the Court below had itself found no merit in the evidence led by the respondent-land holder, it had to altogether reject the claim of compensation of Respondent land holder instead of adopting a middle line for allowing compensation @ Rs. 90,000/- per case which would mean that the award made by the Collector has been increased by almost 18 times for no good reasons. 8. It has been an unfortunate experience of this Court to find that at least even in land acquisition cases matters are being dealt and decided mechanically. Here is the case, where the appellant state did not lead a single evidence either oral or documentary to support its case fixing price of land @ 5000/- per acre. This Court in fact in absence of any evidence led by the appellant State is absolutely at loss to know the rationale of fixation of the rate of land @ Rs. 5000/- per acre in the year 1986. In this regard this Court would also notice with disgust that even the basic documents of the State such as sale report, 5 sale statement and the land acquisition khatian also were not brought on record by leading evidence. Such expectation of fulfilling these basic requirement of this Court may be asking for moon, when the fact remains that even a rejoinder to the claim was not filed by the Collector of the district. The manner in which the Collector of Katihar district has got the present case conducted through the Government Pleader, would itself require some sort of probe as to whether there was some sort of collusion between the land holder and the officials allowing the case to go virtually uncontested. 9. Be that it may, on the basis of the materials on record, the appellant State of Bihar is not in a position to dislodge the factual position that the site and location of the land in question is the same as in two sale deeds contained in Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-1/A. Thus all that would now be relevant to be seen as to how much rate of land can be scaled down on the basis of, they being the sale deeds of a smaller area. As noted above, the plot no. 2174 and 2179 6 of the same mouza are the subject matter of the present appeal, whereas plot 2194 is the subject matter of Exhibit-1 and is separated by 15 plots and a finding of fact in this regard has not been challenged by the appellant herein in this appeal. Once this aspect becomes clear that the geographical location of the two plots are absolutely similar and further that the date of execution of two sale deeds Exhibit-1 and 1/A are prior to date of Section-4 notification of the present case its evidentiary value cannot be altogether brushed aside only on the ground of its being a small piece of land. If the market price of the land on the basis of Exhibit-1 is taken into account, the same will be around Rs. 2,40,000/-per acre inasmuch as Rs. 4995/- was the considerable amount for 2 decimals and 2½ karis of land. Similarly, if market price of another sale deed Exhibit-1/A is taken into consideration, the same would again on computation will make around Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre as Rs. 14000/- was paid for 6 decimals and 7½ karis of land is taken. Though a reference in this 7 regard has also been made in the impugned judgment and award, noticing award of compensation @ Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre in L.A Case No. 10 of 1988, but neither the said document was exhibited nor there is even a copy thereof on record and therefore, this Court will have to proceed only on the basis of Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-1/A. 10. On a clear analysis of the aforesaid two documents i.e. Exhibit-1 and 1/A, it would be found that even if it was for small piece of land, the rate arrived at Rs. 2,40,000/- to Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre could not have been slashed down to Rs. 5000/- per acre. There is nothing on record to show as to how the officials of the appellant State had made valuation of Rs. 5000/- per acre. It is quite elementary that whenever a reference is sought, the land holder has to support his case for the enhanced amount of claim but at the same time the state also owes a duty to place the materials on record to support its determination of market rate of acquired land on the basis of which award has been made under Section-11 of the Act. 8 11. As noted above, not a chit of paper was adduced in evidence by the Appellant State and therefore, this Court will have no option but to hold that fixation of Rs. 90,000/- per acre is neither arbitrary nor fanciful. In fact, Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-1/A even if slashed down by half could have given the land holders a compensation of around Rs. 1,00,000/- to 1,20,000/- per acre but then there is no cross appeal on behalf of the Respondent Land holder and so this Court will have to affirm the market price fixed by the Court below i.e. Rs. 90,000/- per acre. In this regard, it has also to be taken into account that due to selection of land for bandh purpose, some of the land which let with the respondent-land holder had become useless and therefore, it was a fit case where additional compensation could also have been awarded to the land holder for the damage caused to him. 12. Thus taking into account all these aspects, this Court does not find any flaw in the impugned judgment and award enhancing the amount of compensation @ Rs. 9 90,000/- per acre. The impugned judgment and award has to be accordingly affirmed and consequently it has to be also held that the present appeal is devoid of any merit. 13. In the result this appeal must be and is accordingly dismissed. 14. There would be however no order as to costs. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J) Patna High Court Dt.the 10th March 2011 NAFR./Ranjan