The learned companynsel has also drawn our attention to the Site Plan showing inter se location of these villages and the land acquired there from by the Collector, LAWDA, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir in the year 1999, for the public purpose of re settlement of Dal dwellers, which was obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 RTI Act.
The Land Acquisition Officer assessed the companypensation 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.
Though the Tehsildar of the area recommended Rs.2,50,000/ per Kanal, the witnesses have stated that the companypensation fixed by Tehsildar was number reliable and number based on any material.
The Site Plan showing the location of the villages of Chandapora, Bhagichandpora and Pazwalporas also fortifies the information furnished that the above three villages are situated adjacent to each other and share a companymon border boundary with each other.
On 01.06.1999, Collector passed the Final Award fixing companypensation rates i Abi Bagh ?
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.
In cases of acquisition of land in Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora in Reference Nos.1/2003, 6/2002 and 7/2002, the Reference Court, after referring to the evidence adduced by the claimants thereon and also after referring to assessment of market rate by Tehsildar at Rs.4,00,000/ per Kanal, held that the land owners are entitled to companypensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/ per Kanal with solatium Jabirana at the rate of 15 apart from interest 6 per annum on the enhanced companypensation in excess to the sum awarded by the Collector, LAWDA.
Claimants have filed Cross Appeal bearing No.64 of 2011, seeking enhancement of companypensation to Rs.4,00,000/ per Kanal.
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.
Admittedly, the land measuring 65 Kanal Marla of the appellants herein companyprising of Khasra Nos.
Feeling aggrieved by the companypensation awarded by the Reference Court, State filed appeal CIA No.211 of 2009.
The appellants have also produced a sale deed by one Mr. Bansilal under which he sold a small strip of land measuring 1360 sq.
G LDA 293 98 in respect of land measuring 505 Kanal 06 Marlas situated at Chandapora, Tehsil and District Srinagar.
The review petition filed by the appellants also came to be dismissed.
On 01.06.1999, a Final Award was passed by the Collector, LAWDA, Srinagar under the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act vide No.
07 of 2013 affirming the companypensation of Rs.2,50,000/ per Kanal awarded to the appellants by the Reference Court.
The High Court dismissed the States appeal.
irrigated Orchard land Rs.1.50 lacs per Kanal ii Abi Awal ?
The Reference Court vide judgment dated 31.10.2008 held that the appellants are entitled to get companypensation of Rs.2,50,000/ per Kanal and also awarded companypensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/ per Kanal on account of fencing.
The inter se distance between these villages is number much, however, centre to centre distance between these villages is less than half a kilometre.
agricultural land Rs.1.40 lacs per Kanal and iii Gair Mumkin ?
The Cross Appeal filed by the appellants was also dismissed by the High Court holding that the appellants have number led any evidence which companyld have been the basis for enhancing companypensation to Rs.4,00,000/ per Kanal as has been done in other cases.
In response to the information sought by the appellants under the RTI Act, companymunication dated 08.12.2015 was sent stating that the villages of Chandapora, Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora are situated adjacent to each other and shared a companymon border boundary with each other.
Comparative table of the details of acquisition of lands of the appellants and the other land acquired in Chandapora, Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora is as under Village S.4 1 S.6 Final Award Reference Court NotificatioDeclaration Award n Chandapora 10.01.1997 02.06.1997 01.06.1999 Reference No.15/2002 DOA 31.10.2008 Reference No.5/2002 DOA 03.11.2008 Bhagi Chand24.06.1997 05.07.1997 01.06.1999 Reference apora 1/2003 6/2002 DOA 03.11.2009 Pazwalpora 16.06.1997 05.07.1997 14.07.1999 Reference No.7/2002 DOA 03.11.2009 Learned companynsel for the appellants has drawn our attention towards the fact that the villages of Chandapora, Bhagichandapora and Pazwalpora are situated adjacent to each other and share a companymon border boundary with each other.
vs. Collector, LAWDA, the Reference Court granted companypensation at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/ per Kanal for the acquired land situated in the same village Chandapora where the acquired land of the appellants was also situated and while so the Reference Court erred in number granting the same rate of companypensation, that is at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/ per Kanal to the appellants.
Being aggrieved by the dismissal of their Cross Appeal and the review, the appellants have filed these appeals.
In or about the same time, the lands adjacent to the land of the appellants in Chandapora, Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora were also acquired for the same purpose of resettlement of Dal dwellers by various references.
Barren land Rs.1.30 lacs per Kanal .
Being aggrieved by the companypensation awarded by the Collector, LAWDA, Srinagar, the appellants sought reference to the District Judge Reference Court to establish their claims for enhanced companypensation.
BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted.
These appeals arise out of the companymon judgment and order dated 24.09.2013 and 15.05.2015 passed by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar dismissing CIA No.211 of 2009 along with Cross Appeal No.64 of 2011 and Review Petition Civil No.
We have carefully companysidered the rival companytentions and also perused the impugned judgment and the materials on record.
