IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA FA No.111 of 1996 STATE OF BIHAR … Opp.Party-Appellant Versus 1. NIYAMUDDIN 2. Taimmur Ali, Both sons of late Sayub Ali, at resident of village Lalganj, P.S. Prampuras, District Katihar … Appellant-Respondent ----------- 12. 10.3.2011 Heard counsel for the appellant. No one appears on behalf of the respondents. In this appeal the appellant State of Bihar has assailed the judgment and award dated 6.9.1995 and 16.9.1995 in Land Acquisition Case No. 11 of 1992 wherein the learned Sub Judge I cum Land Acquisition Judge, Katihar has re-determined the rate of land beyond Rs. 6,666/- per acre as awarded by the Collector in his award and has enhanced it to Rs. 40,000/- per acre. The facts giving rise to this appeal lie in a very narrow compass. The State of Bihar through the Collector of Katihar district had acquired 0.97 acre of land of plot no. 2752, 2750, 5014, 5011 and 5015 having area of 0.15, 0.01, 0.28, 0.33 and 0.20 decimal for construction of National High-way (Labha Dilli Diwanganj) some time in the year 1988- 89. The Collector under the Act after making 2 necessary enquiry had fixed the rate of land at Rs. 6,666/- per acre and upon awarding further compensation for the house and huts to the tune of Rs. 11,940/- and allowing additional compensation and solicium had fixed the amount of Rs. 28,774.20 paise and that was the award of the Collector under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act. The respondent- land holders had accepted the said payment under protest and had sought a reference giving rise to Land Acquisition Case No. 11 of 1992. From the objection filed by the respondent- land holders it transpires that their claim for higher compensation was primarily categorized into two parts, namely, price of the land as also the amount of compensation for the house and other structure as also trees on the land in question. Before the court below the respondent- land holders had adduced both oral and documentary evidence and while four witnesses had come out to support the claim of the respondent- land holders six documents, all of them being registered sale deeds, were also exhibited as Ext. 1, 1/A, 3 1/B, 1/C, 1/D and 1/E to substantiate the claim of higher compensation of the respondent- land holders. On the other hand, the appellant- State had contested such claim of the respondent- land holders and had sought to support the award made by the Collector. The appellant in fact had also led oral evidence by producing one witness, Amin in the Land Acquisition Office but had produced no documentary evidence. The court below after making detailed analysis of such evidence led by the parties had found the claim of the land holders substantiated primarily from a documentary evidence, Ext. 1/D, a sale deed of the same period i.e. of 1988 of the same area wherein 10 decimals of land were sold for a sum of Rs. 5000/-. The court below in fact in the impugned judgment and award has rejected the other documentary evidence and preferred to rely on this Ext. 1/D, the sale deed, primarily on account of its being not only of the same period when section 4 notification was issued for the land in question but also because they were adjacent 4 to the land acquired. Learned G.P.III, however, has tried to assail the said approach of the court below by taking a plea that not only the sale deed Ext. 1/D was for a very small piece of land only 10 decimals, but from the reading of the sale deed it becomes clear that it had also an access through a road and therefore, the quality of the land was much superior to one which was acquired in the present case. In the considered opinion of this Court such bald assertion of the State or submission of its counsel cannot be accepted. First of all the State has not led any satisfactory evidence which could have shown that the sale deed relied by the respondent- land holders was of inferior quality in comparison to one which was acquired by the State. As a matter of fact it appears that in the same Mauza and in fact almost in the same vicinity the plot in question, plot no. 1872 being the subject matter of Ext. 1/D was sold on 29.8.1988. Admittedly this date of 29.8.1988 is prior to issuance of section 4 notification of the 5 land in question and therefore, its evidentiary value cannot be curtailed or minimized in terms of section 23 of the Act. The other limb of the submission of the learned counsel for the State that since there was an access by way of road to plot no. 1872, the subject matter of Ext. 1/D, its quality has to be treated to be better again will not be of any assistance in this case because admittedly even the land which they have been taken exclusively for construction of the road and therefore, its being adjacent to the road was a foregone conclusion. As with regard to quantum it would be found that the court below has not awarded the cost of the land to Rs. 50,000/- per acre which was the price of the land in view of consideration amount of Rs. 5,000/- for 10 decimals i.e. Rs. 50,000/- per acre. The court below has, however, reduced it to Rs. 40,000/- per acre and such scaling down in fact is on settled principle that the price of small piece of land whenever has to be taken as a market price, in the event of large area acquired, has to be slashed by 6 1/3rd. There will be, however, no hard and fast rule of this 1/3rd formula, inasmuch as here it would be found that only 0.97 acres of land was acquired in which at lest three plots were of the same size as of Ext. 1/D. In this view of the matter, this Court will not apply the rule of thumb for slashing of price to 1/3rd which at best would make the price of the land somewhere in the vicinity of Rs. 34,000/- per acre in place of Rs. 40,000/- per acre. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that it is a conclusion made some 23 years back and the award has been made in the year 1995. After such a long gap when admittedly the enhanced amount for all this period has not been paid to the respondent- landlord they should not be made to suffer keeping in view the decreasing value of money. Thus, this Court would not find any reason to interfere in that part of finding of the court below where it has fixed the value of the land at Rs. 40,000/- per acre. Let it be made clear that the court below has not disturbed the amount awarded by the Collector for the building or orchard 7 or trees or other constructions and they have been allowed to remain as it is. In absence of any appeal from the land holder this Court also would not interfere in the said amount. Consequently this appeal is held to be devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed while affirming the impugned judgment and award of the court below. There would be, however, no order as to costs. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/