<fc ^/ © •VSlO- y^^iiit^^^ '^ti^^i£s^ BE^ORE^THEmGH^OURTOETtlDIGATUREA^ ;ffi^- ::;/,:'.-:':''.:;'.^.^"'-:^Y.^ APPEAI^)N6.::^^;.;:7 2009' ..''"'" APPELLANT ^- .^iy>K^tSi*t?G c^<Rfi^^ ^^•^^^^•%^OffiG^atan,He ^^gs.--^w" :; ' .^'StsSe bfEhhattisgarh,^:;^.., ^ v '. ^ Thrdughthe'Sub Divisiohal _ & Land Aequisitioit iHeadquarterDurgCCG.) 1^su"';':...._,:''. BESPONDENt ^ "~ VERSUS..;,..,..^..,..:,•; PokMraj, : • ' ; S/o Bodhaii Singh Kuririi, R/oyillage]Sibdi^,;,,2^:^ PM- No. 4, Tallsil Gunderdehi, ^" APPEALUNDERSECTION540F;rHELANDACQUISrEIONAGT. \, !fep! »it: .^.. A& :1: ^ .^:^,..I^H.<©C»JRi'113taGHtM@^^3^ SinateBehch:H6n'teleShit3ustices13rastiant?KUni^i sl»^ APPELLA^f^ RESFQNDENT l:irstAbi>eaKMtNo.»6/a»S9 StateofChhatttsigarh Mersus Pokhraj SMriAjayiamyedt.DeputyGovt.^yw^ SM^S.y^^Gows^^Vhes'wpw^^^^^^^^^^^^ APPEAI-UN RSEiEa'IGW^^R'11 1JWOalX©Q^ •,:^1tM^10):-.:..''.,::,^ -:;' 1. .,1; The present appeal has been prefe'rredto^^^c^ p3ssedby ie^Additronal©^^Juc^^^^ responden appli(^id urKi^&e<ittott^^^ (hencefbrth 'the Art') and clifeGfi^i that ^he respondent is entitled to receive^mpensationbytreafinglheaGquifeaiarwtasif^ (2) ttisrotin disputethatthe acrelTOm(<3^raNQ. 91 and93 ctf vitlag^ Sjbdi, T^ DistrictDy(®v^laKX}uiFedbylfhea{^lant^^ bythe LandAecjuisittonCM^^.Ther^pc^ertfi^ the amourrt of compen^iem^s^ed by the 1^^ At^isition UetTOved an apptjcation ur(d|it;|Sed8^^^^^ AcquisittOn pffeer,^i^was refen^ Court. . •• 1;:.. \::'. .'r.'.: : ..••:: ?'•.••'•..::•;:::',:'::':'.'::::::" (3) ^erespohyentstat^l^^ imgat^ an^^fte l^nd^^i^ion^ cottipiensation by^regtting^itai^jia^ the^arid-iwas.jCTigat^TronFiiiy&l^fc^'^:^ y ^ ds- ,J. f: -.2.- ^- (4) The Dis^ Oourt tias foynd tt^ ^e acqiriredy^ land, therefore the compensatiCTt stiould have beCT as^ssed by treating the (and as tmgatecl. ^ (5) Leamed ccw.insel for the appeltant WG^ submit'ttlat Jthe firKlir^ recordedbytheCourtbeltwtohoMth^thesuyectlarolis^^^ absotutety perverse and tftat on the basis of evidCTee a^ recortii no such finciing eould toe: recorded. On the o ier hand leamed cour^t forthe responden^ h^ algued ftat tti&^^ evkletwe on reeord and it does n<^ eall for suiy interference. (6) The Court betow, whUe enhancing the amotmt of compensaUCTi and while recoreling the finding hs^ relied upon the statement of the Hatka Patvrari Shri Jagdish Ram Tl^kur, v^o h^submitted a before the Land Acx(uisitiori Officer on 03-( -2006. <7) In the report submitted by PW-3 Jagdish Ram Thakur it is mentioned ttiat there is no tube wett in asra No. 91 & 93 belonging to the respor^errt^ Me haS^stetedthattheacquiredlar^ from the tube welt instertled on Khssra No. 6 betor^ing-tQ flie respondenfs father. Tlw cespondent along with his reply to the apptiGaUonforGorKlonationcrfdelayhasfileclafieldmspin^^^^ land belot^ir®to respondent Khasra No^l and ^ te^^ distenee from Khasra N6. 6 t^lwiging to this father. In b^ween Wese khasra number fieid of ott»erpersons are atuated. The Tesjxw^ert m his statement hasadmittedthatthereisnomer^Qnin^^ tte laying ofpipeline. He js also ignora^ ^: tybe welhwhich his father has installed. In the i<hasra jWpetS^ of the '^, '•:'1:;'-::' ..,::...;..^^.^ year2CK3^-07itismenU6ned^nther^ •••/i> s» St^S^ K.~' -3- ^ crfKh^ra^. 91 ai^Qaareimgated^ No.6.Thustheretsdiffetenceaboutftiesource(remwhfehthelaN .':' 'i ;•>;"' ',-:-' : 1: .:::.' ; ": imgated. AcGordingtother^p^entsancltiiswftne^^ is done,from atubewells^ereas^khsstaFeGord^s^ bya-wetl. ' •• . •.' :, ::: ;':.' ' • ' :, .-:.":'.' • ; :::'. (8) 1n view ^f ftie evidence onxrecoret it would appear that the finding recordedbytheCourffcelcwthatthe^ufe^lar^wasirriga^isnotm accordanee with the evidenGe on record. The ^iid findir®is perverse. (9) tn view oflhe above finding the instant appeal suGceeds and is alloweci. The impugned awl'ard is set-iffiide. Ttffiaward pa^edltyffie LandAcquisftronOfficerisr^torKt. Prashant Kumar Mis Judge