FIRST APPEAL No. 187 OF 2005 Against the judgment dated 14.02.2005 and the award signed on 25.02.2005 by the 4th Additional District Judge, Nawadah in Land Acquisition Case No. 4 of 1985/9 of 1991. THE STATE OF BIHAR ………. Opposite Party-Appellant Versus BABU LAL SAO ……… Applicant -Respondent With FIRST APPEAL No. 191 OF 2005 Against the judgment dated 17.02.2005 and the award signed on 26.02.2005 by the 4th Additional District Judge, Nawadah in Land Acquisition Case No. 28 of 1991/73 of 1985. THE STATE OF BIHAR ………. Opposite Party-Appellant Versus SUKAR SINGH ……… Applicant -Respondent With FIRST APPEAL No. 196 OF 2005 Against the judgment and award dated 21.03.2005 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Nawadah in Land Acquisition Case No. 340 of 1984/48 of 1991. THE STATE OF BIHAR ………. Opposite Party-Appellant Versus DAYANAND SAO & ORS. ……… Applicant -Respondent ******** For the Appellant (in all the First Appeals) :Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, A.C. to A.A.G. 3 For the Respondents(in all the First Appeals) : None Dated : 16th day of March, 2011 2 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 First Appeal No. 187 of 2005 against the judgment and award dated 14th February, 2005 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.4 of 1985/9 of 1991, First Appeal No.191 of 2005 against the judgment and award dated 17th February, 2005 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.28 of 1991/73 of 1985 and First Appeal No.196 of 2005 against the judgment and award dated 21st March, 2005 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.340 of 1984/48 of 1991, all the judgment and award have been passed by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Nawadah, Sri Navin Kumar Sinha. (2) Since the lands involved in all the above three First Appeals have been acquired by the State of Bihar, the appellants by same notification and for the purpose of construction of Phulwariya Jalashaya and the points involved in all these First Appeals and the evidences adduced by the parties in these First Appeals are also in same line and the judgment passed by the learned Court below is on the same line and the same Advocates are appearing on behalf of the appellants. All the three First Appeals are heard together and are disposed of by the common judgment. (3) It appears that in all the three First Appeals, the houses of the claimants-respondents have been acquired by the State of Bihar in Land Acquisition Case No.13 of 1982-83 for the purpose of construction of Phulwariya Jalashaya. Award No.90 dated 07.01.1984 was prepared for Rs.12,883.34 in the name of the claimants-respondents in Land Acquisition Case No.4 of 1985/9 of 1991 of the Court of 4th Additional District Judge, Mungeshwar Sahoo, J. 3 Nawadah giving rise to First Appeal No.187 of 2005. Likewise, Award No.186 was prepared for Rs.6,590.08 in favour of the claimants- respondents of Land Acquisition Case No.73 of 1985/28 of 1991 giving rise to First Appeal No.191 of 2005 and award No.57 of the same date was prepared for Rs.7,970.08 in the name of the claimants-respondents of Land Acquisition Case No.340 of 1984/48 of 1991 giving rise to First Appeal No.196 of 2005. The claimants received the said compensations from the Land Acquisition Officer with objection and filed application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act claiming enhancement of the compensation alleging that the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded inadequate and very low compensation for the house acquired by the State of Bihar. Their application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act were referred to the Land Acquisition Judge and the Land Acquisition Judge after hearing the parties, on the basis of materials available on record, passed the impugned judgment and award which have been challenged in the three First Appeals as stated above. (4) The case of the claimant-respondent in First Appeal No.187 of 2005 is that the value of the aforesaid house is not less than Rs.50,000 at the time of acquisition. Likewise, the claim of the claimant- respondent in First Appeal No.191 of 2005 is that the value of the house acquired is not less than Rs.25,000 at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and likewise, the case of the claimant-respondents in First Appeal No.196 of 2005 is that the value of the house acquired is not less than Rs.70,000 on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. (5) It appears that in all the above three First Appeals, the claimants-respondents examined two witnesses. Out of two witnesses, one 4 is claimant-respondent and the other is of the neighbouring village. It further appears that in all the three First Appeals, the State of Bihar also examined one witness as formal witness who proved the Khatiyan as Exhibit-A and B. From perusal of the witnesses of all the three First Appeals, it appears that the claimant-respondent and also the other witnesses have given specific description of the house acquired by the State of Bihar for the purpose of construction of Phulwariya Jalashaya. In First Appeal No.187 of 2005, A.W.2 is the applicant himself. According to both the witnesses, the house was double-storey building built by mud and it has 9 rooms and a kitchen and verandah and the value of both the houses acquired was not less than Rs.50,000-55,000. (6) In First Appeal No.191 of 2005 also, the applicant is A.W.2. A.W.1 is of neighbouring village. The witnesses have stated that double- storey building was acquired by the State of Bihar. The house was built by mud and there were 8 rooms and verandah. In First Appeal No.196 of 2005, the applicant-respondent was examined as A.W.1. A.W.2 is of neighbouring village. According to the evidence of these witnesses, the applicant had 2 houses which were acquired by the State of Bihar. One house had 6 rooms and verandah and the second house had 4 rooms and it was built with bricks and cement. It has also court yard, verandah and septic latrine as well as kitchen. They claimed that value of the house was not less than Rs.70,000. (7) On the contrary, in all the three First Appeals the State of Bihar-appellant examined only one witness as O.P.W.1 who has proved Exhibit-A and B which are Khatiyan. 5 (8) After hearing the parties, the learned Court below in First Appeal No.187 of 2005 held that the applicants-respondents are entitled for Rs.40,000 as compensation and also held that they are entitled for other statutory benefits. In First Appeal No.191 of 2005, the Land Acquisition Judge held that the claimants-respondents are entitled to a compensation of Rs.20,000 for house acquired and also granted other benefits under the statute. In First Appeal No.196 of 2005, the Land Acquisition Judge held that the claimants-respondents are entitled to a compensation of Rs.60,000 for the house acquired and also granted the other statutory benefits. (9) The learned A.C. to A.A.G.3 appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the Land Acquisition Judge only on the basis of oral evidences enhanced the compensation and the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Judge is exorbitant. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Court below has awarded compensation for “Well” also. As stated above, nobody appears on behalf of the respondents. (10) In view of the above submission of the learned counsel, the points arise for consideration in these First Appeals are as to “whether the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Judge are exorbitant and based on reliable evidence” and “whether the impugned judgment and awards are sustainable in the eye of law?” (12) Admittedly, all these houses of the applicants-respondents have been acquired for the purpose of construction of Phulwariya Jalashaya in Land Acquisition Case No.13 of 1982-83. The awards have been prepared on 07.01.1984, therefore, the market value of the property acquired by the State of Bihar is to be fixed on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. As discussed above, all the witnesses 6 examined on behalf of the claimants-respondents in all the First Appeals, have given specific description of the houses and also the valuation. On the contrary, the State of Bihar has only proved the Khatiyan which has been marked as Exhibit- A and B in all the cases. The witness examined on behalf of the State of Bihar, O.P.W.1 has stated that the valuation of the house has been fixed on the basis of Khatiyan. In the Khatiyan, there is no description of the house. The appellant has not explained as to how the Land Acquisition Officer computed the valuation of the house acquired by the appellant. Therefore, the witness examined on behalf of the State of Bihar is only to the effect that the compensation was prepared on the basis of the Khatiyan. There is no material on the record to show how valuation of the house was computed. As discussed above, there is no denial on the part of the appellant regarding the existence of the house. There is no denial of the evidence of the claimants regarding the valuation of the house. In other words, the evidence of the claimants-respondents regarding the existence of house and the value thereof is uncontroverted. In such circumstances, I find no force on the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the oral evidences could not have been relied upon by the learned Court below. Since the evidences adduced by the claimants- respondents were reliable and there is no contrary evidence regarding the valuation, in my opinion, the learned Court below has rightly relied upon the said oral evidences. (13) The learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that the compensation for “Well” could not have been given because the “Well” is not a property rather it is a facility attached to the property which was acquired by the State of Bihar. From perusal of the impugned judgment and award, it appears that although, the claimants have claimed separate 7 compensation for the cost of the “Well” but the learned Court below has not awarded any specific separate compensation for the “Well” and, therefore, it cannot be said that the learned Court below has granted compensation for “Well” also. Although, it has been mentioned that the claimants are entitled to such and such compensation for the house and “Well”, in my opinion, only because of mentioning compensation for “Well” also, it will not vitiate the judgment. Moreover, the compensation for the “Well” is not severable. (14) From perusal of the impugned judgment and award, it appears that the learned Court below has considered all pros and cons and the materials available on record and after taking note of all these facts, the learned Court below has awarded the compensation as stated above. (15) I, therefore, find that the compensation awarded by the learned Court below is neither exorbitant nor exaggerated and, therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. Accordingly, the findings of the learned Court below in all the three Appeals are hereby confirmed. (16) In the result, I find no merit in the above three First Appeals and, therefore, all the three First Appeals are hereby dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.) Patna High Court, Patna The 16th March, 2011 Saurabh/N.A.F.R.