High Court of Uttaranchal · 2006

9- Heard Sri Nand Prasad learned counsel for the State/appellant and perused the record. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent despite service by publication. 10- The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf for the State/ appellant has submitted that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the market value of the land in terms of quality of soil and awarded compensation to the respondent at very high rate without any basis. 11- The only question which arises for determination in this appeal as under:- (cid:147)Whether the rate of compensation awarded by the Reference Court to the claimant is just and adequate, or it is on higher side?.(cid:148) 12- In support of their claims, the claimants have examined Kishan Lal, P.W. 1, Mohan as P.W.2 and the State has produced Lekhpal Hukam Chand Agarwal, as D.W.

The claimant(cid:146)s witnesses have deposed that the disputed land is about 5 Kms. away from Bindal bridge and is on the main Chakrata Road; that the claimants were growing vegetables on this land and were taking three crops from it; that when the land was acquired the claimants were given compensation for the crops standing on the land; that the Military Residential Quarters are at a distance of hardly 50 yards from this land and that the bank is also situated nearby. The claimants also filed paper Nos. 59-C to 65-C which show that compensation regarding the standing crop was also paid to them. 13- The sale deed into consideration as exemplar sale deed (paper No. 46-C) belongs to the land situated about one kilometer away from this land and Mohan had sold this land because he had to pay some loan and he was in need of money, as his children were ill and it can(cid:146)t be a good exemplar sale deed Mohan P.W. 2 has also deposed this fact before the Reference Court. It has also come in the evidence that the disputed land is a potential building site. The witness of the state had no acquaintance with the disputed land. He even does not know the dimensions of the acquired land. The Reference Court has discussed this issue in detail and looking to the potentiality of the land for building site awarded compensation @ Rs. 2500/- per Bigha ,which in my view is a just and adequate compensation and it can(cid:146)t be said on higher side. 13- I do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Reference Court and needs no interference. 14- The rate of interest awarded in the case on the balance amount @ 6% per annum also do not require any interference. 15- In view of the aforesaid, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 16- Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and award dated 28-3-1985, so far as it relates to L.A. Case No. 26 of 1980, Harbans Lal Vs. Collector, is hereby confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) Dated: 11-09-2006 ISB