IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA FA No. 65 of 1995 THE STATE OF BIHAR Versus UDAI SHANKAR SINGH & ANR. WITH FA No. 66 of 1995 THE STATE OF BIHAR Versus UDAI SHANKAR SINGH & ANR. WITH FA No. 71 of 1995 THE STATE OF BIHAR Versus UDAI SHANKAR SINGH & ANR. WITH FA No. 89 of 1995 THE STATE OF BIHAR Versus BABU LALL SINGH & ANR. WITH FA No. 95 of 1995 THE STATE OF BIHAR Versus ALTAF HUSSAIN ------------ 6. 30.4.2010. In this batch of appeals the challenge is to the judgment and decree dated 8.12.1994 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 116 of 1994 and other connected matters. A notification was issued by the State Government for the acquisition of lands in L.A. Case No.86/81-82 of village Paitaniya, P.S. Rajauli, District- - 2 - Nawadah for construction of Fulwariya Jalasaya Scheme. The Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation which did not satisfy the claimants. On an application being filed under Section 18 of the Act, the matter was referred to the Reference Court. Before the Reference Court, it is claimed that the lands were valuable lands being homestead lands, that apart, they use to yield paddy. They claim that the land will not fetch Rs.600 per decimal. To substantiate the said, they exhibited a judgment dated 7.12.1992 in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 238 to 243 of 1992, Exhibit-I, and number of witnesses were examined. The Land Acquisition Officer on the perusal of Ext-I determined Rs.270/- per decimal. The question that emerges for consideration, whether the amount granted is just and proper. There is material on record that the lands are homestead and they are adjacent to road. The Reference Court has also referred to the earlier proceedings. While dealing with the case for determination, certain principles have to be kept in view. They have been - 3 - spelt out by their Lordships in the Apex Court in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and others Vs. Shardaben and others, (1996) 8 SCC 93, Hookiyar Singh and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Moradabad and another, (1996) 3 SCC 766, In State of U.P. and others Vs. Ram Kumari Devi (Smt.) and others, (1996) 8 SCC 577, Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Narrottambhai Morarbhai and another, (1996) 11 SCC 159, G. Narayan Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, (1996) 10 SCC 607, Kanwar Singh and others Vs. Union of India, (1998) 8 SCC 136, Hasan Ali Walimchand (dead) by LRs Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 2 SCC 388, Land Acquisition Officer Revenue Divisional Officer, Chitor Vs. L. Kamalamma (Smt.) dead by LRs and others K. Krishnamachari and others, (1998) 2 SCC 385, In Kasturi and others Vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 354, Ahad Brothers Vs. State of M.P. and another, (2005) 1 SCC 545, Sharadamma Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, 2007 AIR SCW 1109 and Land Acquisition Officer A.P. Vs. Kamandana - 4 - Ramakrishna Rao and another, 2007 AIR SCW 1745. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that there is no justification warranting interference in these appeals and the same stand dismissed without any order as to costs. Pawan/- ( Dipak Misra, C.J. )