HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL. First Appeal No. 274 of 2001 Old F.A. No. 680 of 1996 1. State of U.P. Through the Collector Haridwar. 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, (Joint Organisation) Saharanpur. 3. Executive Engineer, Upper Ganga Cana, Modernisation Division-6, World Bank, Roorkee. ….. Appellants. Versus 1. Mukhtyar Ahmad, 2. Ishtyak Ahmad, Both sons of Bashir Ahmad. 3. Hanif Ahmad, 4. Rashid Ahmad, Both Sons of Mushtaq Ahmad, Residents of Pandvi Gujjad, Pargana and Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. (Claimants) ….. Respondents. Sri Nand Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants. None appeared for the respondent. Date April 21, 2006. Hon. B.S. Verma. J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 19-7-1995 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Nainital, in Land Acquisition Reference No. 87 of 1993 Mukhtyar Ahmad and others Vs. State of U.P. and others whereby the learned Reference Court allowed the reference in part and the claimants were entitled to get compensation @ Rs. 22,868.14 per Bigha pucca along with solatium @ 30% and additional compensation and interest in accordance with law. Relevant facts are that the State Government acquired land measuring 2.675 acres for modernization of Upper Ganga Nahar under the World Bank Project belonging to the land-owners including the present claimant-respondents. Notice under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 26.5.1992 followed by publication of notice under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 ( for short the Act) on 18-11-1992. After necessary formalities under the provisions of the Land acquisition Act 1894, the Special Land Acquisition Officer ( for short the S.L.A.O.) assessed compensation of the acquired land on the basis of exemplar sale deed mentioned at serial number 14. In this sale deed land measuring 3-14-0 Bigha was purchased for Rs. 80,000/-. The maximum rate of land was fixed to be Rs. 22,868.14 per Bigha, but the S.L.A.O. instead of granting compensation at the highest rate of land, fixed different rates as mentioned in the award dated 28-4-1993. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the S.L.A.O., the claimants filed objections alleging that the market value of the land under acquisition was not less than Rs. 2,50,000/- per Bigha and the claimants were not heard properly in the matter. The compensation was received by the claimants under protest. According to the claimants, the land under acquisition was situate one k.m. inside the G.T. Road and the circle rate fixed for this land is Rs. 2,50,000/- per Bigha pucca as fixed by the Addl. District Magistrate ( Finance) Haridwar. It was also alleged that the land of the claimants is Abadi and is only 1 km. away from the Railway Station. Accordingly, the reference was made to the District Judge, Haridwar for adjudication of the market value of the acquired land. The State filed his written statement and supported the compensation awarded by the S.L.A.O. It was alleged that the objectors were heard before passing the award. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Reference Court framed two issues. Issue No.1 related to the compensation being improper and inadequate and Issue No. 2 related to relief. The learned Reference Court after perusing the entire evidence on record has observed that the S.L.A.O. had accepted exemplar sale deed at serial number 14 dated 30-6-1992 and he had assessed market value on the nature of land differently. The learned Reference Court on the basis of evidence found that there was no evidence to show that the fertility of the acquired land was different at different places. The Reference Court though relied upon the exemplar sale deed but did not find favour with the S.L.A.O. that the claimants were entitled for different market value. The highest market rate fixed by the S.L.A.O. was Rs. 22,868.14 per Bigha pucca and the claimants were entitled to this market rate of land. The learned Reference Court did not agree with the submission of the claimants that they were entitled to the area circle rate of Rs. 2,50,000/- per Bigha. The reference court also observed that the claimants could not lead evidence regarding the yield from the land. Ultimately, relying the exemplar sale deed, the learned District Judge found that the claimants were entitled to get highest market value of the land @ Rs. 22,868.14 P. per Bigha as assessed by the S.L.A.O and for the entire peace of land, this market value ought to have been fixed. Accordingly, the Reference Court partly allowed the reference and awarded compensation to the claimants @ Rs. 22,868.14 per Bigha pucca along with 30% solatium etc. as mentioned in the impugned order dated 19-7-1995. The main ground to assail the impugned award passed by the Reference Court is that the learned Reference Court was not justified in awarding a common rate of market value for the entire land under acquisition and the finding to that effect is not supported by evidence on record. It may be mentioned that the respondent no. 2 Ishtyak Ahmad and respondent no. 4 Rashid Ahmad have already died during the pendency of the appeal. Hence the appeal against them stands abated. I have heard learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the entire material on record. It reveals from the record that that the learned Reference Court itself has relied upon the exemplar sale deed, which was relied upon by the S.L.A.O. The State has not filed any evidence before the Reference Court to show that different types of crops were being grown so as to suggest separate market value of the land acquired. The record shows that the S.L.A.O. has not assigned any reasons for awarding different market value. For fixing different rates for the land under acquisition, it was incumbent upon the State to have substantiated its contention by cogent and reliable evidence. No such evidence was led before the Reference Court, which may be suggestive of awarding different rates for different kind of land. The evidence shows that the entire land was being used for agriculture and was acquired for modernization of Upper Ganga Canal. In my view, the Reference Court was justified in holding that the highest market value i.e. @ Rs. 22,868.14 per Bigha pucca can be awarded to the entire land under acquisition. On the basis of evidence on record and after assigning cogent reasons, the Reference Court has recorded its finding and having considered the material on record, I fully agree with the finding of the Reference Court that the claimants were entitled to compensation at the market value of Rs. 22,868-14 per Bigha pucca for the entire land. The land was acquired for the same purpose. The compensation has been awarded on the basis of sale exemplar. In such a situation, the potentiality of the land only can be examined on the basis of sale exemplar and purpose for which the land was acquired. The finding of the reference court on this point does not suffer from error of law and facts. I am in full agreement with the finding recorded by the learned Reference Court. For the reasons and discussion aforesaid, I find that the appeal preferred by the State is devoid of merit and is liable to the dismissed so far as respondent no. 1 and 3 are concerned. Appeal against the respondent no. 2 and 4 stands abated as they are reported to have been died. The appeal is hereby dismissed as against respondent nos. 1 and 3. The impugned judgment and order dated 19-7-1995 is affirmed. No order as to costs. (B.S. Verma, J.) RCP