Notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') was
JUDGMENT published in respect of the land at Village Bhuri,
taluka Jhagadia for the purpose of a Lignite Project
as far back on 10th May, 1988. Declaration under
Section 6 of the Act followed on 20th May, 1989. The
Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation
at the rate of Rs.75/- per Are corresponding to Rs.
0.75 paisa per Sq. Mtr. as per the Awards dated
02.03.1990 and 08.03.1990. Being dissatisfied with the
compensation computed by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer, the claimants had raised dispute before the
Reference Court which, after hearing the parties,
increased the compensation to Rs.16.29 paisa per Sq.
Mtr. together with interest and 30 per cent solatium.
This was challenged in the High Court. In the Impugned
Order the learned Division Bench has noted that village
Maljipara and village Bhuri are adjacent to each other;
and their boundaries touching each other. Noting that
the compensation had been finally settled in respect of
the village Maljipara, the Division Bench thought it
appropriate to grant compensation at the same rate. In
doing so it took into account the fact that there was
no evidence showing any distinguishing feature of the
lands between these two villages. We have also perused
the Map in question and we note that the two villages are contiguous to each other, having common boundaries
and are almost at equal distance to village Madhavpara.
We may clarify that so far as the compensation payable
in respect of village Maljipara is concerned, that was
granted on the basis of a Sale Deed in Madhavpara. We
also take note that there is no evidence to show that
any injustice or any illogical conclusion was arrived
at in following the compensation rate applicable to
village Maljipara for the village Bhuri also.
Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the Appellant has drawn out attention to Kanwar
Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India (1998) 8 SCC 136, and
especially to paragraph 9 therein. This is for the
purpose of contending that merely because the
compensation stood settled so far as village Maljipara
was concerned, that was not sufficient ground to apply
that same rate to village Bhuri. As has already been
noted by us above, this very question had been taken
into consideration in the Impugned Order and the High
Court recorded the finding that there was no evidence
to disclose that the challenged rate of compensation
was, for any discernible factors, higher than what
should have ordinarily been determined for village
Bhuri. Since the High Court has specifically entered on a comparative analysis, this decision does not come
to the aid of the Appellant.
We find no merit in these Appeals, which are
dismissed accordingly.
The amount deposited by the Appellant be
released to the Respondents forthwith.
Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (in short ‘the Act’) was published in respect of
the land at village Rajpardi, taluka Jhagadia for the
purpose of a Lignite Project as far back on 24th February,
1994. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act followed on
14th July, 1994. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.45 per Sq. Mtr. for
non agricultural land and Rs.6 per Sq.Mtr. for agricultural
land as per the Award dated 09.02.1996. Being
dissatisfied with the compensation computed by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants had raised dispute
before the Reference Court which, after hearing the
parties, increased the compensation to Rs.26.70 Sq. Mtr.
for agricultural land and Rs.155 per Sq. Mtr. for Non
agricultural land together with interest and 30 per cent
solatium. This was challenged in the High Court. In the
Impugned Order the learned Division Bench has noted that
village Rajpardi and village Madhavpara are adjacent to
each other and are also covered under the same Group Gram
Panchayat. In doing so it also took into account the fact JUDGMENT that there was no evidence showing any distinguishing
feature of the lands between these two villages. We have
also perused the Map in question and we note that the two
villages are contiguous to each other, having common
boundaries. We may clarify that the compensation payable
was computed on the basis of the Sale Deed concerned with
the village Madhavpara. We also take note that there is no
evidence to show that any injustice or any illogical
conclusion was arrived at in following the compensation
rate applicable to village Madhavpara.
Mr. V.Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Appellant has drawn our attention to Kanwar Singh & Ors.
vs. Union of India (1998) 8 SCC 136, and especially to
paragraph 9 therein. However, this decision was rightly
not cited before the High Court for the simple reason that
village Rajpardi is adjoining to village Madhavpara, and is
further away from village Bhuri as well as village
Maljipara. The High Court recorded the finding that there
was no evidence to disclose that the challenge rate of
compensation was, for any reason, higher than what should
have ordinarily been determined for village Madhavpara.
We find no merit in these Appeals, which are
dismissed accordingly.
The amount deposited by the Appellant be released to
the Respondents forthwith.