FIRST APPEAL No. 214 OF 1993 Against the judgment and award dated 19.08.1992 passed by Sri Laxman Uraon, 1st Additional District Judge, Nawadah in Land Acquisition Case No. 108 of 1992/66 of 1988. STATE OF BIHAR ………. Opposite Party-Appellant Versus BINOD SHANKAR SINGH & ANR. ……… Claimants-Respondents ******** For the Appellant : Mr. J.S.Arora, Advocate, S.C. VI Mr. Indrajeet Singh, Advocate, A.C. to S.C. VI For the Respondents : Mr. Uday Shankar Sharan Singh, Advocate Dated : 17th day of January, 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 First Appeal against the judgment and award dated 19.08.1992 passed by Sri Laxman Uraon, the learned First Additional District Judge, Nawadah in Land Acquisition Case No.108 of 1992/66 of 1988 allowing the application of the respondents under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and enhancing the compensation for the lands acquired by fixing the market value at Rs.300 per decimal. (2) It appears that the lands of the claimants-respondents measuring about 4 acres 48 decimals was acquired by the State of Bihar for Mungeshwar Sahoo, J. 2 the purpose of construction of Phulwariya Jalashaya in Land Acquisition Case No.9 of 1982-83. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 01.10.1981. The Land Acquisition Officer made an award being Award No.1 for a sum of Rs.66,113.96. The claimants- respondents received the said compensation on protest and filed application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act praying therein that the amount of compensation paid by the Land Acquisition Officer is abnormal low and therefore, claimed that the matter may be referred to the Land Acquisition Judge. According to the claimants, the market value of the land at the prevalent time was at Rs.500 per decimal. The Land Acquisition Officer referred the said application under Section 18 to the Land Acquisition Judge. (3) After trial, the learned Land Acquisition Judge by the impugned judgment and award determined the compensation for the acquired land at Rs.300 per decimal. (4) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Court below has wrongly fixed the market value of the land at Rs.300 per decimal. According to the learned counsel, the learned Court below has not properly appreciated the evidences available on record. The learned counsel further submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer has rightly prepared the award and the compensation paid by the Land Acquisition Officer is adequate. (5) On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants-respondents submitted that earlier the Land Acquisition Judge has passed a judgment fixing the rate of the lands of other persons acquired for the same purpose by the same notification which has been produced by the claimants in the Court below i.e. Exhibit-1. It is settled law that the 3 judgment fixing the market value of land, the nature of which is similar to that of the land acquired is the best evidence and therefore, the learned Court below has rightly relied upon Exhibit-1 and fixed the rate of the land as determined in Exhibit-1. The learned counsel further submitted that according to proviso to Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, the learned Court below should have granted interest at the rate of 15% on the excess amount determined by the Land Acquisition Judge after one year from the taking of possession but the learned Court below has only granted 9% and therefore, the impugned judgment and award may be modified to the said extent. The learned counsel further submitted that for the purpose, this Appellate Court has power under Order 41 Rule 33 C.P.C. and for that, the respondents are not required to file cross-objection. (6) In view of the above contentions of the parties, the points arise for consideration in this appeal is as to “whether the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Judge is proper” and “whether the impugned judgment and award are sustainable in the eye of law?” (7) Before the Land Acquisition Judge, the claimants produced oral as well as documentary evidences. A.W.1 is Yadunandan Singh. A.W.2 is Narendra Prasad Singh. According to A.W.1, the value of the lands acquired at the time of acquisition was Rs.500 per decimal. He has stated that along with his lands, the lands of other villagers were also acquired by the said notification for the same purpose. This witness has further stated that out of 4 acre 48 decimals lands acquired by the State of Bihar, the lands measuring 4 acre 30 decimals belongs to his wife, Anjani Devi and the remaining 18 decimals belonged to Binod Shankar Singh. A.W.2 is brother of said Binod Shankar Singh. 4 (8) Exhibit-1 has been filed on behalf of the claimants which is a judgment of Land Acquisition Judge in Land Acquisition Case No.21 of 1987. From perusal of paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment, it appears that lands of one Chamari Ram and others of Village Singer were acquired by the said notification for the Phulwariya Jalashaya Scheme for which these lands were also acquired. Against the award made by the Collector, the said persons filed application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which was referred to the Land Acquisition Judge and in that Land Acquisition Case No.21 of 1987, the rate of the lands were fixed at Rs.300 per decimal. The learned Court below based the judgment on this Exhibit-1 i.e. the earlier judgment of the Land Acquisition Judge regarding the lands acquired for the same purpose. There is no dispute regarding the nature of the land involved in Exhibit-1 and the lands acquired in this appeal. (9) It appears that the State of Bihar, the appellant never filed any objection to the claimants nor any witness was examined by the State of Bihar in support of the market rate of the lands acquired. In other words, the evidence of the claimants-respondents regarding the prevalent market value on the date of acquisition remained ex-parte and uncontroverted. (10) In a decision reported in 1996, Volume 2, P.L.J.R. Page 151(State of Bihar vs. Maheshwari Prasad), this Court has held that the judgment and decree passed by the Land Acquisition Judge in relation to the different reference cases arising out of the same land acquired under the same and single notification is the best evidence in determination of the compensation. It may be mentioned here that for the same purpose, by same notification, lands of different villages have been acquired by the State 5 of Bihar and by the judgment as contained in Exhibit-1, the Land Acquisition Judge has fixed the rate of the land at Rs.300 per decimal. (11) In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case that the oral as well as documentary evidences stands uncontroverted by the State of Bihar, the appellant, in my opinion, there is no reason for interference in the impugned judgment and award. (12) However, from the judgment, it appears that while fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.300 per decimal, the learned Court below held that the claimants are entitled to get interest at the rate of Rs.9% on the excess amount of compensation from the date of possession till deposit of the amount in the Court. So far this part of the direction is concerned, in my opinion, the learned Court below has not considered the proviso to Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act which provides that where such excess or any part thereof is paid into Court after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken interest at the rate of 15 per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into Court before the date of such expiry. It is well settled principles of law that for this purpose, the respondents are not required to file cross-objection. The learned Court below ought to have followed the provisions as contained in Section 28 stated above. (13) In 1991, Volume 1, Supreme Court Cases 262(Sri Vijay Cotton and Oil Mills vs. State of Gujarat), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that award of interest is obligatory and consequential to application of Section 34 or 28 and it can be claimed even in the appeal filed by the State and it is not necessary to file separate appeal or cross-objection. I, 6 therefore, find that the claimants are entitled for the interest at the rate of 15% as provided under proviso to Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The impugned judgment and award of the learned Court below is therefore, modified to the extent indicated above. (14) In the result, I find no merit in this appeal and therefore, this First Appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment and award are modified to the extent indicated above and it is held that the claimants- respondents are entitled for interest as provided under proviso to Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.) Patna High Court, Patna The 17th January, 2011 Saurabh/N.A.F.R.