Case: Ali Mohammad Beigh  Vs. State Of J &amp; K

3. Brief facts which led to filing of these appeals are as follows: Notification dated 16.06.1997 was issued by the Collector, Lakes and Waterways Development Authority (LAWDA), Srinagar vide No.C-LDA/452-64, under Section 4(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of land measuring 505 Kanal 06 Marlas situated at Chandapora, Tehsil and District Srinagar, for the construction and development of housing colony for the resettlement of dislocated families of the Dal dwellers. On 01.06.1999, a Final Award was passed by the Collector, LAWDA, Srinagar under the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act vide No. G-LDA 293-98 in respect of land measuring 505 Kanal 06 Marlas situated at Chandapora, Tehsil and District Srinagar. The Land Acquisition Officer assessed the compensation amount payable to the applicants/estate holders at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per Kanal Abi-Bagh, Rs. 1,40,000/- per Kanal for Abi-Awal and Rs. 1,30,000/- for Gair-Mumkin. On 01.06.1999, Collector passed the Final Award fixing compensation rates: (i) Abi-Bagh irrigated Orchard land (Rs. 1.50 lacs per Kanal); (ii) Abi-Awal agricultural land (Rs. 1.40 lacs per Kanal); and (iii) Gair-Mumkin Barren land (Rs. 1.30 lacs per Kanal).4. Being aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Collector, LAWDA, Srinagar, the appellants sought reference to the District Judge/Reference Court to establish their claims for enhanced compensation. The Reference Court vide judgment dated 31.10.2008 held that the appellants are entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- per Kanal and also awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per Kanal on account of fencing.5. Feeling aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Reference Court, State filed appeal CIA No.211 of 2009. Claimants have filed Cross Appeal bearing No.64 of 2011, seeking enhancement of compensation to Rs. 4,00,000/- per Kanal. The High Court dismissed the States appeal. The Cross Appeal filed by the appellants was also dismissed by the High Court holding that the appellants have not led any evidence which could have been the basis for enhancing compensation to Rs. 4,00,000/- per Kanal as has been done in other cases. The review petition filed by the appellants also came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of their Cross Appeal and the review, the appellants have filed these appeals.

Court's reasoning:
12. As noted earlier, village Chandapora is situated adjacent to villages Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora; while so, there was no reason why the Reference Court differentiated the land of the appellants-land owners of the acquired land in Chandapora land Reference No.15/2002 by awarding lesser compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/-. On a perusal of the judgment of the Reference Court in Reference No.15 of 2002, it is seen that the witnesses were examined by the appellants to substantiate their case that the market rate of the land in village Chandapora in the year 1998 was about Rs. 8,00,000/- per Kanal. Though the Tehsildar of the area recommended Rs. 2,50,000/- per Kanal, the witnesses have stated that the compensation fixed by Tehsildar was not reliable and not based on any material. The appellants have also produced a sale deed by one Mr. Bansilal under which he sold a small strip of land measuring 1360 sq. feet in the vicinity of the acquired land for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. But the Reference Court discarded the evidence of witness Bansilal on the ground that under the sale deed only a small area of land was sold and the sale deed cannot be taken to be a representative character of the entire land. In our view, the Reference Court was not right in discarding the said sale deed which was supported by oral evidence of the witnesses, to substantiate their claim that the market rate assessed by the Tehsildar at Rs. 2,50,000/- was not a fair compensation.13. When the lands are more or less situated nearby and when the acquired lands are identical and similar and the acquisition is for the same purpose, it would not be proper to discriminate between the land owners unless there are strong reasons.When the lands are acquired at the same time and for the same purpose that is for resettlement of Dal dwellers, the lands situated in three different villages namely, Chandapora, Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora, and since the land is similar land, it would be unfair to discriminate between the land owners and other references and the appellants who are the land owners in Reference No.15 and pay less that is Rs. 2,50,000/- per Kanal to the appellants and pay more to other land owners that is Rs. 4,00,000/- per Kanal.