FIRST APPEAL No. 584 OF 1995 Against the judgment dated 19.09.1994 and the award signed on 23.09.1994 by Sri J.P.Singh, Subordinate Judge-cum-Land Acquisition Judge, Muzaffarpur in L.A. Case No. 263 of 1981. ********* THE STATE OF BIHAR ---------------Opposite Party-Appellant Versus MD. JAFER ALAM-------------Claimants-Respondents For the Appellant – Ms. G. Nisha, A.C. to A.A.G.-7 For the Respondent – Mr. Gyan Prakash, Advocate Dated :7th day of September, 2010 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ------------ J U D G M E N T Mungeshwar Sahoo, J. (1) This First Appeal has been filed by the State of Bihar against the judgment and award dated 19.09.1994 passed by Sri J.P.Singh, the learned Subordinate Judge-cum-Land Acquisition Judge, Muzaffarpur in Land Acquisition Case No. 263 of 1981. (2) It appears that for the purpose of extension of North Bihar Industrial Area, Bela Chapra, Muzaffarpur, the lands of this respondent along with others were acquired and the notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act was published on 01.03.1979. Three awards were prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer. This respondent and other claimants being dissatisfied with the award of the Collector filed objection under Section 18 of the L.A. Act and the said objection were referred to the Land Acquisition Judge. Three Land Acquisition Cases were initiated being Land Acquisition Case No. 253 of 1981, 263 of 1981 and 260 of 1981. By this common judgment, the Land Acquisition Judge enhanced the compensation regarding the lands of the respondents and other 2 claimants. The State of Bihar filed three First Appeals being First Appeal No. 582 of 1995, 583 of 1995 and this present First Appeal No. 584 of 1995. Out of these three First Appeals, two First Appeals being First Appeal No. 582 of 1995 and 583 of 1995 have been dismissed for default. This First Appeal arises out of Land Acquisition Case No. 263 of 1981. The lands of the respondent measuring 1.13 acres comprised within survey plot no. 89 has been acquired. The Collector prepared award no. 22 fixing the compensation for the acquired land of the respondent at Rs.2144.20 paise only. The Land Acquisition Judge by impugned judgment and award fixed the market value of the lands acquired at the rate of Rs.1,000 per decimal. (3) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the acquired lands were orchard land and therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer has rightly awarded the compensation to the owners but the learned Land Acquisition Judge has wrongly applied the earlier judgments passed by the Land Acquisition Judge relating to other lands and has enhanced the compensation. On this ground, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned judgment and award are liable to be set aside. (4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and award and that the same cannot be interfered with in this appeal. The learned counsel further submitted that the lands situated contiguous to the present lands were also acquired for the same purpose by the same notification and different land acquisition reference cases were heard by the Land Acquisition Judge and the Land Acquisition Judge considering the nature of the land and the potential values fixed the market value. The claimants have filed the said judgments in this land acquisition case which had been marked as Exhibit-2 series. The nature of the acquired land in this present case is same to that of the lands 3 which were involved in Exhibit-2 series. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Land Acquisition Judge has fixed the same rate. On these submissions, the learned counsel submitted that the First Appeal is liable to be set aside. (5) In view of the above rival submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the point raises for consideration in this First Appeal is as to “whether the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Judge is proper and just compensation” and “whether the impugned judgment and award are sustainable in the eye of law.” (6) It appears that the claimant has adduced oral evidences as well as documentary evidences in support of the market value of the lands acquired. Four witnesses have been examined on behalf of the claimants. Out of them, A.W. 4 is the claimant-respondent himself. All the witnesses have stated about the potentiality of the lands acquired. According to them, the lands acquired is valuable and the witnesses have also stated that the similar nature of lands have been sold at Rs.6,000 or Rs.4,000 per Katha. The claimants also filed Exhibit-1 series which are sale deeds of the year 1975 and 1977. As stated above, the present lands were acquired in the year 1979. From perusal of that Exhibit-1/a and 1/b, it appears that similarly situated lands have been sold at Rs.4,000 per Katha. (7) Exhibit-2 series are the judgment regarding the acquisition of similar nature of land of same village. Exhibit-2 is the certified copy of judgment dated 15.10.1988 in Land Acquisition Case No. 265, 266, 267, 268 and 269 of 1981. The lands in those cases were also acquired by the same notification and in that judgment, the rate was fixed at Rs.1,000 per decimal. It is admitted fact that the lands of the claimant-respondent is also of same nature. (8) Exhibit-2A is another judgment dated 09.02.1993. In that 4 case also for the same purpose, lands were acquired in the year 1977 and in that also, the rate of the lands acquired was fixed at Rs.1,000 per decimal. (9) Exhibit-2B is another judgment dated 05.10.1993 arising out of Land Acquisition Case No. 261 of 1981 in which also, the lands were acquired in 1977 for the same purpose. In that case also, the rate of the land acquired was fixed at Rs.1,000 per decimal. (10) The learned Land Acquisition Judge relied upon these judgments and found that the nature of the lands acquired in those cases is of same place and same nature. Some of the lands were acquired by same notification. (11) In a decision reported in 1996 (2) PLJR Page 151, the State of Bihar vrs. Maheshwari Prasad, this Court has held that the judgment and decree passed by the Special Judge arising out of the same land acquired under single notification can be taken as a relevant evidence for just decision of the case. This Hon’ble Court relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1995, Suprme Court 840, The Special Land Acquisition Officer and another vrs. Sri Siddappa Omanna Tumari and others and also 1983 BBCJ Supreme Court Page 11, Har Charan vrs. State of Haryana. In the case of Har Charan(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: “ It is a well settled principle that the best evidence with regard to evaluation of price of land in a proceeding for ascertainment of compensation for land acquired under the Act is the Award of the Court, subject of course, to the comparison of the land areawise topographywise and usewise. The appellant sought amendment relying on this principle. The question is whether the High Court was justified in dismissing this petition in limine. Order VI, Rule 17 in terms provides that the court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.” 5 (12) In the present case, the learned Land Acquisition Judge has passed his decision on the previous judgments Exhibit-2 series. Further it appears that so far two other First Appeals are concerned, the same have already been dismissed. (13) Considering the above facts and circumstances, it appears to me that the learned Court below has rightly fixed the rate of the land at Rs.1,000 per decimal. I find no illegality in it. Accordingly, the finding of the Court below is hereby confirmed. (14) In the result, I find no merit in this First Appeal and this First Appeal is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs. Patna High Court, Patna Dated 7th September, 2010 N.A.F.R./ Saurabh (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)