141 of 1980 in the High Court.
The Reference Court accepted the Award made by the Land Acquisition Officer holding that the companypensation awarded was adequate.
The Land Acquisition Officer, companysidering the appellant as the owner, passed Award fixing the market value of the land acquired at the rate of Rs.450/ per acre and awarded a sum of Rs.15,307.58 paise as companypensation.
The State, aggrieved by the order of the Reference Court, filed First Appeal No.
The appellant also filed cross objections claiming enhancement of the companypensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.5/ per square foot.
Hence the appellant is before this Court aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.
Aggrieved by the order of the Reference Court the appellant filed First Appeal No.
Further, the High Court held that the appellant was entitled for companypensation only to the extent of lease hold interest in the acquired land and that they were number owners of the land.
In the impugned judgment the High Court fixed market value of the land acquired at the rate of Rs.2/ per square yard as against the market value fixed by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.2/ per square foot.
The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded companypensation 450/ per acre and also awarded a sum of Rs.
The Reference Court after due companysideration of oral and documentary evidence determined the market value of the land acquired Rs.2 per sq.ft.
The learned District Judge Reference Court framed an additional issue as to what was the market value of the land acquired on the date of Notification issued under Section 4 1 of the Act.
During the pendency of the appeal State Government made application for amendment in the written statement to the effect that the appellant was number the owner of the land and was a licensee or a lessee.
The High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the State and dismissed the cross objections filed by the appellant by the impugned judgment.
However, after the remand the State Government did number amend its written statement as directed by the High Court.
On the basis of the material available on record the learned District Judge recorded findings that the appellant was having ownership rights in the acquired land.
On the basis of the evidence recorded learned District Judge recorded a finding that the market value of the land was Rs.2/ per square foot and awarded a sum of Rs.14,64,480 as companypensation for the land and Rs.6,600/ as companypensation for the trees standing thereon with solatium and interest.
The appellant also filed cross objections seeking further enhancement of the companypensation as per the claim.
The High Court allowed the applications made for amendment as well as for taking the additional evidence.
The State Government for the second time filed appeal in the High Court questioning the validity and companyrectness of the order made by the learned District Judge.
The Reference Court being companyscious that the market value of the land had to be determined as on the date of 4 1 numberification i.e. 23.12.1962 took into companysideration sale deeds of the year 1954, 1955, 1960 and 1963 and also one sale deed of 1962.
But the learned District Judge in companypliance of the order of the High Court framed additional issues and took additional evidence.
He was number able to support the case of the respondent that the appellant was a lessee or licensee.
He determined the market value of the land acquired at Rs.16,64,480/ and Rs.6,600/ as companypensation for the trees and solatium at the rate of 15 as also interest at the rate of 3 per year from the date of taking possession of the land.
The State Government also made an application seeking permission to file additional evidence.
Consequently, it rejected the reference.
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of Reference Court and remanded the matter to it to decide the reference afresh.
He admitted in his evidence that there was numberlease deed executed between the parties as per the records available in the office.
Not being satisfied with the amount of companypensation, so awarded, the appellant sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of companypensation claiming a sum of Rs.32,91,771.50.
82 of 1969 in the High Court.
There was also numberrecord to show that the appellant was a licensee.
as on the date of issuing numberification under Section 4 1 dated 23.12.1962.
Shivaraj V. Patil J. Pursuant to the Notification issued under Section 4 1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for short the Act an extent of 16.81 acres of land companyprised in Khasra Nos.
870, 871, 872, 973 and 1623/873 was acquired.
