IN THE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTES&ARH BILASPUR FIRST APPEAL (M) N0. 2^ OF 2009 APPELLANT : PLAINTEFF T Bedram S/0 Jatiram Sabel, aged about 52 years, R/0 Village- Dholnar, Tahsil- Sakti, District .Janjgir-Champa (C.6.) ^Q&^' p.. Q.y^:s . »9^;a- >» rs£a°* RESPONDENTS : 1. &EFENDANTS VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Distrit- Janjgir Champa, a-1 2. Land Acquisition Officer, Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.6.) MEMORANDUM OF FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTEON 54 OF THE LAND ACQUISrTEON ACT. 1894 REA& WITH SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCE&URE. ^ii __ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Singte Bench: Hon'bte Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra First Appeat (Ml No. 29 of 2009 Bedram Versus State of ChhatUsgarh and another. ORDER Postfor04-0&-2010. Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR Sinate Bench: Hon'bte Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra APPELLANT RESPONDENTS First Aopeal JM»No. 29 of2009 Bedram Va'sus State of Chhattisgarh and ancrther. •'vf r Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel forthe appeltant. Shri Ajay Dwrivedi, Deputy Govt. Advocate forthe State/respondente. MEMORANDUM OF FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTK)N 54 OF THE LAMD ACQUISmON ACT. 1884 READ ViflFm SECTION 96 OF TOE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ORDER t O^- .08.28101 Heard. (2) The present appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acqutsition Act, 1894 (tienceforth the Acf) has been preferred by the hokler/claimant chalter^ing the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Sakti decictlng the reference against him by holdir^ that the appellant is rert entitled for enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded by ttre Land Acquisition Officer/Collector. (3) Appettant's land admeasuring 0.194 hectare sftirated at village Dhotnar, Tahsil - Sakti, District - Jan^ir-Champa was acquired for construction of Dholnar Sub Division Canal in Land Acquisition Case No. 14/A-82/2002-2003. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation to tfte appeHant @ Rs.2,06,30)/- per hectare by treating his tand 3S non-imgated. (4) Leamedcoun^ifortheappetlantsubmittedthatthelandbelongii^ to the appellant which were subjected to the acquisition vrere irr^ated iand, therefore he was entitted to higher <ampensation by catetulatingthe t-t ..•-•'laSl'!«^ ^.»^^ t5 ••'. ,..,^ -0.' amount of compensation on the rate applteable to imgated land. He also submits that the Court below has not property appreciated the dasuments submitted by him in proof of the fact that the land was iiTigded. (5) On the other hand the State counse! has aiigued that the appellant has failed to submit retiable evidence to prove that the land was imgated and therefore no interference is caHed for. (6) The Court below has observed thsrt the award was passed in May, 2003 whereas the dwument Ex.P/3, Ex.P/4 and Ex. P/5 submitted by the appellant are of the year 20)7-08. Record of the Land Acquisition case has been perused by this Gourt and on perusat it woukl appear that land belonging to one Mekhlal has been treated as irr^ated as the sakl holder of tne land had submitted proof of the fact that the land is irr^ated by tube-wetis on the other hand the appellant has no* submitted any proof of the fect that his tands were irrigated. (7) Before the Court below the appetlant had submitted the document Ex.P/3 which is a map hwwever from this map'rt cannot be concluded that the tand was imgated. Ex.P/4 is ttie copy of Khasra Panchsala of the year 2007-08. Similariy copy of the record of right in Form B-1 of the year has been submitted as Ex. P/5. Receipt of deposft of water tax has been submitted in which it is reftected that the joint holder Saitut @ Jaitram has paid Rs.1,0 l- as against the tota! water tax of Rs.2871.05 paise, for the year 2X)2-03. This d^)osit was made on 15-CO-20Q3. The Hatka Patwari has submitted a certificate dated 02-01-2008 to certity that the iand bearing Khasra No. 26/1 is imgated from the Deoripali tank. Ex. P/9 is another such certifcate issued by the Revenue Inspector on 25-04-2x)8. V* ../ -s'. (8) The proceedings ft>r acquisition of land started on 10-12-2002 by Issuing notification under Section 4 of the Act. The appellant has not submitted any proof that the subject lands were irr^ated fronn the Deoripali Tank prior to the year 2003. He has no* submitted any receipt of payment of irrigation tax prior to March, 2003. No khasra entry or entries in the records of rights have been submitted in proof on assertion that the land was imgated from Deoripali Tank in the year 2002-2003. When the concemed Patwari had issued a <%rtificate (Ex. P/8), it is strange as to how the same Patwari who has issued the Khasra entries (Ex. P/4) has not made any entries in the Khasra PanchKita regarding the tand being imgated. The appeliant has not submitted Khasra entries of the year 2002-2003 or of any previous year, which makes the certificate issued by the Patwari suspterous. (9) Considering the totality of the evidence it appeare that the land belonging to the appetlant was not imgated and the leamKl Additional Dlstrtet Judge has not committed any error in recording the finding that the appellant has faited to prove that his lands were irrgated. (10) tn view of the above, there is no error of law or fact committed by the Courts below in holding that the appellant is not entitled to seek enhancement in the amount of compensation. (11) Consequentty, the appeal faite and is hereby dismissed. Sd7- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge t->