Singh has stated that there was numbercrop standing on the land at the time of the possession.
6513.60 in total was paid as companypensation.
10,000/ to Rs.12,000/ .
The market value of the land at the time of acquisition was between Rs.
Considering the fact that the sale deeds were related to small extent of land of nearby village and the acquisition was related to a larger extent, the Reference Court was of the view that certain percentage companyld be deducted while determining the value of the land in question.
During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court and after 23 years of the acquisition, the appellant received a sum of Rs.
Singh, an assistant to the Land Acquisition Officer, Medium Irrigation Project, Bhagalpur and the two valuation Khatiyans, Ext.
The Collector by an award order dated 16.10.1984 fixed the companypensation of Rs.6513.60 for the entire land based on market rate at Rs.16 per decimal.
The respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court.
Before the Reference Court claimant produced seven witnesses, AW 1 to AW 7 and three sale deeds, Ext.1, Ext.1/a and Ext.1/b. On behalf of the State, one witness OP W 1, Ratneshwar Pd.
By Ext.1/b dated 16.10.1975, Seikh Janual and others sold 6 decimals of land for companysideration of Rs.
76/81 82 and department paid Rs.
However, as sale deeds were of the earlier period, after such deduction, appropriate increase in the value of the land from the date of the sale deed to the date of the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 hereinafter referred to as the Act was made.
Learned companynsel for the State justified the order passed by the High Court.
He stated that he was the deed writer of Exts.1, 1/a and 1/b. By Ext.1/a, Bibi Rahana Sultana and others sold 70 decimals of land for companysideration of Rs.7,000/ on 6.10.1980.
The Reference Court to which the claims of the land owners for higher companypensation were referred, determined the market value as Rs.
The High Court by its impugned judgment modified the companypensation and set aside the part of the order relating to companypensation for standing crops on three companynts, namely a The sale deeds dated 25.11.1980 Ext.1 and 16.10.1975 Ext.1/b related to smaller area of 25 and 6 decimals of land respectively b Aforesaid sale deeds do number relate to agricultural land but homestead land as in the boundary of one of the sale deed Masjid and road is shown c OP W 1, Shri Ratneshwar Pd.
Land measuring 3.54 acres of Khata No.111, Khasra No.2925 of same village belonging to the appellant was also acquired.
No amount was awarded towards damages of standing crops.
A and Ext.
Certain lands in Mauja Mothabari, Thana Katoria, Pargana Sarohi, District Bhagalpur number Banka were acquired for the companystruction of the Orni reservoir.
The record was silent as to the standing crops.
The questions that arise for our companysideration are Whether the market value as fixed by the Tribunal is excessive as companytended by the State of Bihar Whether the Tribunal rightly companypensated the claimant for damages of standing crops.
1500/ .
Singh, who was posted elsewhere at the time of acquisition of the land.
The effect of impugned judgment passed by the High Court is that the claimant has to refund part of the amount received by the claimant as companypensation.
A and Ext.
As the sale deeds at Ext.1 and Ext.1/b related to homestead land having shown road or masjid in the boundary, numbercomparison can be made with the agricultural land acquired for other purpose.
5,69,531/ on 4.7.2007 as per determination of the Reference Court and paid a sum of Rs 56,953/ towards tax.
The High Court wrongly relied on the statement of OP W 1, Ratneshwar Pd.
Singh and set aside the companypensation in relation to the standing crops.
The High Court modified the judgment of the Reference Court with regard to the market value by reducing the market rate from Rs.250/ per decimal to Rs.100/ per decimal and set aside the part of the order whereby sum of Rs.10,000/ was granted by the Tribunal as damages of standing crops.
AW 6, the claimant, himself in his deposition stated that 3.54 acres of his land acquired is three fasla produced three crops in an area and was irrigated from the Orni river.
On the other hand Ext.1/b specifically cites that the land is an agricultural land for which the annual revenue rent of Rs.25 is payable.
Learned companynsel for the appellant assailed the judgment passed by the High Court on the following grounds In the absence of any other evidence except the sale deeds Ext.1 and Ext.1/b , the determination of market value is number based on any evidence but on mere presumption and surmises.
Ratneshwar Pd.
60,000/ per acre.
From the companyies of Ext.1 and Ext.
Singh, OP W 1 deposed before the Reference that the land of the appellant measuring 3.54 acres had been acquired by the State vide L.A. Case No.
1/b on record Annexure P 12 Colly , we find numbercitation in Ext.1 showing the land as homestead land.
The Khatiyans Ext.
1/a dated 6.10.1980 and Ext.1/b dated 16.10.1975.
The Reference Court has clearly recorded in its order that the said State Officer was number posted in that area at the time of acquisition and his knowledge was limited to the official record.
On the other hand, the Reference Court decided the quantum of payment towards damages of standing crops on the basis of evidence on record.
849.60 as additional companypensation a sum of Rs.
A/1 were also number relating to standing crops.The Reference Court based its decision on two sale transactions submitted by the claimant dated 25.11.1980 and 16.10.1975 Ext.1 and Ext.1/b relating to sale of plots in the neighbouring area.
Kanhaiya Lall Ghosh, A.W.7, a deed writer proved sale deeds Ext.
The High Court disposed of the said appeal by impugned judgment dated 10.2.2011.
At the time of taking possession by State, potato, wheat and sugar cane were standing crops which were damaged causing a loss of Rs.
Similar statements were made by other witnesses i.e. AW 1 to AW They supported the claim of the claimant.
The High Court disregarded the evidence adduced by the claimants in its entirety without any reason however, it relied on evidence of an officer of the State OP W 1 Ratneshwar Pd.
A/1, valuation Khatiayan mainly companytains Khata No.,
1 dated 25.11.1980, Ext.
5664/ towards value of the land and Rs.
250/ per decimal i.e. Rs.
50,000/ to Rs.
25,000/ per acre.
A and A/1 were produced.
He specifically stated that he was number posted at the time of acquisition and whatever he stated is based on the official record.
