FIRST APPEAL No. 227 OF 2003 Against the judgment and award dated 26.06.2003 passed by Sri Shiva Shankar Sharma, 1st Additional District Judge-cum-Land Acquisition Judge, Nawadah in L.A. Case No.244 of 1986/189 of 1992. THE STATE OF BIHAR ………. Opposite Party-Appellant Versus MANOJ KUMAR ……… Applicant-Respondent ******** For the Appellant : Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, A.C. to S.C.16 For the Respondent : None Dated : 5th day of July, 2011 P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO J U D G M E N T The State of Bihar has filed this appeal against the judgment and award dated 26.06.2003 passed by Sri Shiva Shankar Sharma, learned 1st Additional District Judge-cum-Land Acquisition Judge, Nawadah in L.A. Case No.244 of 1986/189 of 1992 enhancing the rate of compensation and also finding that the land acquired by the State of Bihar belonged to the respondent. (2) It appears that 2 acre 7 decimal lands of Khata No.31, Plot No.2 of village Dhuri Taran was acquired by the State of Bihar along with other lands for the purpose of construction of Phulwariya Water Reservoir under the Phulwariya Reservoir Scheme in the year 1984. The compensation was prepared in the name of State of Bihar for the said land. Mungeshwar Sahoo, J. 2 (3) The respondent filed application under Section 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act alleging that the said land was settled by the Ex- landlord in the year 1936 in favour of the father of the respondent by the Ex-landlord. After settlement, the Ex-landlord accepted rent and granted rent receipt in his favour. At the time of vesting of zamindari, the Ex- landlord filed return in the name of father of the respondent namely, Narendra Prasad Singh and on the basis of the same, the State of Bihar accepted rent from father of the applicant. Since then, the father of the applicant was in possession of the land as Occupancy Raiyat and after his death, the applicant is coming in possession. The award has been wrongly prepared in the name of State of Bihar. The claimant further stated that the value of the acquired land was Rs.500 per decimal but the Land Acquisition Judge has given a very low compensation. The said claim of the applicant was referred to the Land Acquisition Judge. Before the Land Acquisition Judge, the parties adduced their evidences. By the impugned judgment, the Land Acquisition Judge fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.269 per decimal and also held that the respondent is entitled to receive the compensation. (4) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that although, there was no documentary evidence regarding title of the applicant, the learned Court below held that the applicant-respondent is entitled to receive the compensation and moreover, the Land Acquisition Judge has wrongly enhanced the compensation by fixing market value of the land at Rs.269 per decimal although, the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was just and proper. (5) As stated above, nobody appeared on behalf of the claimant- respondent. 3 (6) In view of the above question raised by the appellant, the only point arises for consideration is as to “whether the applicant-respondent is entitled to receive the award of compensation at the rate fixed by the Land Acquisition Judge and whether it is exorbitant or just and proper?” (7) To prove their respective cases, the parties have adduced evidences. The applicant-respondent has filed Sada Hukumnama (Exhibit 1). Exhibit-2 is the rent receipt granted by the Ex-landlord. Exhibit-3 is the rent receipt granted by the State of Bihar. The applicant has also filed certified copy of the Chirkuit showing the return filed by the Ex-landlord in the name of father of the applicant which has been marked as Exhibit-4. Exhibit-5 is another rent receipt granted by the State of Bihar in the name of father of the applicant. From perusal of Exhibit-3, it appears that the then Circle Officer wrote a letter to the Land Acquisition Officer finding that Manoj Kumar was entitled to get compensation as he was the Occupancy Raiyat of the lands acquired. In addition to the documentary evidences, the claimant also examined A.W.1 and A.W.2. Contrary to this, there is no other evidence adduced by the State of Bihar to show that the applicant is not the owner of the property. Moreover, it is well settled principles of law that State of Bihar cannot acquire its own land and, therefore, the award could not have been made in the name of State of Bihar. In such view of the matter, the finding of the learned Court below on this point is therefore, confirmed. (8) So far enhancement of compensation is concerned, it appears that the learned Court below relied upon Exhibit-6 which is a judgment pronounced earlier by the Land Acquisition Judge. From perusal of Exhibit- 6, it appears that many cases were referred to the Land Acquisition Judge under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In all the cases, lands were 4 acquired for the Phulwariya Reservoir Scheme. After considering oral evidences, earlier judgment and also sale deeds exhibited in those cases, the Land Acquisition Judge fixed the market value of the lands acquired at Rs.269 per decimal. The said Exhibit-6 has been made the basis for fixing the said rate in the present case. There is no contrary evidence adduced by the State of Bihar regarding the market value of the land. There is no reason as to why the learned Court below could not have relied upon Exhibit-6. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. (9) In the result, I find no merit in this First Appeal and accordingly, this First Appeal is dismissed. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.) Patna High Court, Patna The 5th July, 2011 Saurabh/N.A.F.R.