(Anil R. Dave and Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ.)
Prahlad Dubey & Ors. etc. ___________________________ Appellant(s)
v.
State of Bihar _____________________________________ Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 4264-4269 of 2016, decided on April 12, 2016
[arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 25204-25209 of 2012]
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
Anil R. Dave, J.:—
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Delay condoned.
3. Leave granted.
4. The matter pertains to acquisition of land for the purpose of constructing extension of a Government Hospital by the State of Bihar. Thus, it is clear that the land is situated in the area which is quite developed as it abuts the hospital. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a sum of Rs. 17,600/- per acre. Being aggrieved by the said valuation, the appellants filed applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court enhanced the amount to Rs. 20,000/- per kattha for the land on the back side whereas the land which was on the road side was valued at Rs. 25,000/- per kattha.
5. The respondent-State of Bihar was aggrieved by the said enhancement and therefore, the State filed First Appeals for getting the compensation amount reduced. After hearing the concerned parties, the High Court deducted 60% from the value arrived at by the Reference Court on the ground that the land was not very well developed and because the land was not comparable to the lands in respect of which sale instances were produced. In the circumstances 60% (Rs. 12,000/-) was deducted from Rs. 20,000/-, and in all Rs. 8000/- per kattha has been awarded.
6. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered by the High Court, the land owners have challenged the impugned judgment by way of these appeals.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the sketch which has been placed before this court by the appellants. Upon perusal of the said sketch and upon knowing the locality of the land which has been acquired, we find that the land is not away from the city but it is abutting the hospital and the locality in which the land is situated is quite developed. In the circumstances, deduction to the extent of 60% does not appear to be fair.
8. It is an admitted fact that the sale instances which had been relied upon by the Reference Court were pertaining to sale of large area and therefore, deduction upto 30% was quite reasonable. We are, therefore, of the view that the deduction of 60% is not justifiable. However, deduction should have been 30%.
9. For the afore-stated reason, we enhance the amount to Rs. 14,000/- per kattha. The appeals stand disposed of as allowed. No order as to costs. Needless to say that further statutory benefits shall be given on the value ascertained herein-above.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 25204-25209/2012
Prahlad Dubey & Ors. ______________________________ Petitioner(s)
v.
State of Bihar _____________________________________ Respondent
Date : 12/04/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
(Before Anil R. Dave and Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, Adv.
Mr. S.K. Sarkar, Adv.
Mr. Abinash Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Balkrishn Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Garg, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Order
10. Delay condoned.
11. Leave granted.
12. The appeal is disposed of as allowed in terms of the non-reportable judgment.
———
