Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

COLLECTOR versus MAHENDRA SINGH & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Collector v. Mahendra Singh & Another - FIRST APPEAL No. 62 of 1979 [2006] RD-AH 14000 (22 August 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

RESERVED

FIRST APPEAL NUMBER 62 OF 1979

 The Collector, Saharanpur

        Versus

Mahendra Singh and another

Hon'ble Prakash Krishna, J.

The Collector, Saharanpur, has questioned the legality and validity of the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur dated 3-10-1978 in L.A.Case No.14 of 1978, whereby the Court below has enhanced the compensation amount in L.A.Reference in favour of the claimant- respondent no.1. The State Government by means of Notification issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 29-7-1971 and 31-12-1971 respectively acquired vast area of land measuring 210 Bigha 9 Biswa and 10 Biswansi situate in Village Surai Pargana Jwalapur Tehsil Roorkee, district Saharanpur for the disposal of sewage water at Jwalapur. The land of the claimant- respondents measuring 8 Bigha 12 Biswa was also included in the aforesaid acquisition proceeding. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a sum of Rs.13,321.40 as compensation for 8 Bigha 12 Biswa land of the claimant respondent @ Rs.1504/ per bigha besides solatium @ 15%.

Feeling aggrieved, the reference for determination of market value of the land was made by the claimant respondent which has been accepted in part by the Court below holding that the claimant is entitled to the compensation @ Rs.3,448/- per bigha as also solatium @ 15% there upon. The judgment of the Court below is subject matter of the present appeal.

Heard Sri R.C.Srivastava, learned Standing counsel in support of the appeal and perused the record. It may be placed on record that no compensation was awarded for the loss of business by the court below and that part of the order has not been subject matter of appeal.

The reference court has treated sale deed executed by Sri Lalla with respect to Plot no.317as an exemplar for fixation of compensation amount . It is also admitted case of the parties that the said sale deed was taken as exemplar by the Land Acquisition Officer while making the Award. The Land Acquisition Officer after taking into consideration the said sale deed as exemplar has reduced the market value of the plot in question by taking the circle rate as fixed in the year 1920. Obviously taking into account the circle rate as fixed in the year 1920 while determining the market value of the land with reference to notification dated 29-7-1971 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act ,by no stretch of imagination ,it can be said to be justified. Further deduction was made by the Land Acquisition Officer that the said sale deed executed by Lalla was in respect of irrigated land capable of yielding two crops in a year.  Before the reference court the claimant Mahendra Singh appeared in the witness box and stated on oath ,which has been relied upon by the Court below that the land in question is in near village abadi and is irrigated by Raj Baha and Tube- well for the last 18- 19 years and yield three crops in a year. In absence of any contrary material on record the reference Court preferred to believe the statement of Sri Mahendra Singh. Learned Standing counsel could not point out any circumstances before this Court to persuade the Court not to accept the statement of Mahendra Singh. The claimant- respondent by has discharged his burden by producing the oral testimony that the land in question is irrigated land. In absence of any contrary material, if the court below exercising original jurisdiction preferred to rely upon the statement of Mahendra Singh, it is not desirable to the appellate court to disagree with the trial court in the absence of any contrary evidence.

In this view of the matter there is no error either of law or fact in the judgment of the reference court. There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Dated: 22nd    Aug.2006

IA


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.