é? HEGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR First Appeal (M) N675 of 2m? APPELLANT (S): 1. State of Chhattisgarh: Through the NON-AFPUCANT$ Coliector, District Janjgir—Champa, Chhattisgarh 2. Land Acquisition Officer, Hasdeo Project, Headquarter, Janjgir, District Janjgir—Champa, Chhattigarh Versus 1. Omprakash Singh; aged about 44 years, S/o Paitan Singh 2. Satyaprakash Singh, aged about 40 years, S/o Paltan”8ihgh Sanat Kumar Singh, aged about 63 years, S/o Phool Singh, Dhari Singh, aged about 52 years, 8/0 Phool Singh Respondents No.1 to 4 are Rio Viiiage Lachanpur, Tahsii Champa, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh RESPONDENTg’S): APPUCANTS Present: Shri U.N.S. Deo, Govt. Advocate for the Stateiappeilants. Shri Vinay Pandey, counsel for the caveator. Division Bench: Hon’bie Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon’ble Shri RN. Chandrakar, JJ. J L! D G M E N T (2-1 2-2609) The following judgment of the Court was delivered by Dhirendra Mishra, J. i. This First Appeal (M) is directed against the order dated 12‘“ May, 2006 passed in M.J.C. No.14/05 whereby learned Additional District Judge Janjgir on reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short yo ‘the Act’) at the instance of the respondents herein by the impugned crder has passed an award in favour of the respondents for a sum of Rs.6,24,000!- ; and also awarded soiatium of Rs.1 ,87,200/—. 2r Hereinafter the parties shalt be referred to as per their description before the Court below. 3. The applicants’ land bearing survey No.96, 97, area 2.03 acres and survey No.105i8 area 0‘05 acres was acquired for the purposes of construction of _ canal by the State. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation for the acquisition of the aforesaid land at Rs.1,41,415I-. ‘The amount of compensation was received by the applicants under protest and on their application under Section 18 (2) of the Act, a reference‘was made to the District Judge for adjudication of their objection against the amount of compensation awarded to them. 4. The case of the appticants before the District Judge was that the acquired iand is residential plots, as number of houses have been constructed in the \ proximity of the PWD road and considering the possibility of future expansion, compensation awarded is too inadequate and the amount of compensation ought to have been fixed at the rate of Rs.3,000/— per deoimai. No reply was tiled by the non-applicants. 5. 0n the basis of the pleadings, issues were framed. The applicants examined ’ Dhari Singh, Suresh Kumar Panda, Manohar, Om Prakash and Sanat Singh in support of their claim whereas, no witness was examined on behalf of the State. Learned District Judge by the impugned order passed an award for a sum of Rs.6,24,000f— as just compensation for the acquired iand. A solatium of 3K Rs.1,87,200/-’at the rate of 30% of the compensation was also passed. it was further held that the applicants shaH be entitled for interest @ 12% pei' annum from 15-5-1 998 tiii payment of amount of compensation. 7. Shri U.N.S. Deo, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State! appellants argued that the amount of compensation has been fixed by the learned District Judge by treating the acquired land as equivalent to residential piots @ Rs.3000/- per decimal whereas, the agriculturat land has V been acquired and there is no evidence that the land was diverted as residential plots. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the amount of compensation as per prevailing market rate of agricultural land in the area, which was strictly in accordance with'law, however, the learned District Judge has enhanced the amount of compensation to R‘s.6,24,000l- without . l considering that the land acquired was agricuttural land and the compensation could not be awarded by treating the same as residential plots. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that from documentary and oral evidence available on record, it would be evident that the land in question is situated in the proximity of the main PWD road, number of dwelling houses have been constructed on the adjacent plots, the other land appurtenant to the land of the applicants was also acquired and t the award was passed vide Ex.-P/1 and the compensation at the rate of Rs.3000i— per decimal was fixed by treating the aforesaid land at par with the residential plots. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. Learned District Judge, on due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, has arrived at the conclusion that the disputed ’ A. land is situated at a distance of only 42-45 meters from the main road. ‘ Number of houses have been constructed nearby. The Iand of the land owner Dhari Singh and 6 others was also acquired by the Government and g compensation was fixed while treating the same at par with‘the residential plots at the rate of Rs.8,800!— per decimai in the year 2000 vide award dated 31“ March, 2003 (EX.-P/1). From perusal of map of the disputed tand, it is clear that there are residential accommodations constructed over the land adjacent to the disputed land and, therefore, it has been held that the tand in " question is fit for residential purposes. However, compensation has been fixed at the rate of Rs.3,0001- per decimal and not Rs.8,800!— per decimat. r 11. After going through the documentary and oral evidence available on record, which has not been controverted by the non-applicants, we are of the opinion that teamed District Judge, on due appreciation of the evidence available on record, has passed the impugned award and the same does not call for any interference. 12. ,n the result, the appeal being without any substance, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. l Sd/- l Sd/— Dhirendra Mishra l R.N. Chandrakar Judge Judge Barve