High Court of Uttaranchal · 2006

learned Smt. Beena Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 8- The only controversy which arises in this appeal is (cid:150) whether the flat rate fixed by the Reference Court is just and proper or not? 9- The main contention of the claimant/respondent is that the disputed land has much importance as fairs used to take place there four times in a year and large number of people visit there and the land owners used to earn money by organizing shops on their lands. But from the evidence adduced before the Reference Court, it become obvious that the disputed land is situated on the other side of the canal, some land is 100 meters away, some land is 500 meters award and some land is 100 meters away from the Aabdi. No reliable evidence has been adduced on behalf of the land owners to show that really fairs were organized on the land and it had much utility for organizing shops there.

It has been amply proved that the land was being used for agricultural purposes. The S.L.A.O. as well as the Reference Court have chosen exemplar sale deed dated 20-10-84 brought on record by the parties which was sold by Sharif Ahmad at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per Bigha. The quality of both the land is the same and the land of the exemplar sale deed is adjacent to the disputed land. On the one hand the S.L.A.O. considered the sale deed as just and proper but on the other hand he fixed the cost of the land at circle rate at a low price. The market value of the acquired land has to be determined primarily on the basis of the sale-deeds as provided under the Land Acquisition Act and that too the market value of the land at the date of publication of the notification U/S 4(1) of the Act. In the present case the only sale deed dated 20-10-84 was brought on record which pertains to the year 1984, whereas the land in question was acquired in the year 1987.

Both the courts have considered the sale deed dated 20-10-84 as exemplar sale deed and as per the said sale deed the Reference Court was justified in fixing the value of the disputed land@ Rs. 30,000/- per Bigha. 10- It may be mentioned here that the controversy involved in the present appeal has been resolved by this Court vide judgment and order dated 8-6-2006, passed in Defective First appeal No. 413/2001, Special Land Acquisition Officer Versus Rafiqat and another. The said appeal was dismissed on merit. The learned counsel appearing for the State has fairly conceded to this fact. In view of this fact also it is expedient in the interest of justice that this appeal may be dismissed on merit in terms of the earlier judgment of this court aforesaid. 11- For the reasons and discussion aforesaid, the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12- Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 29-10-1990, passed by Additional District Judge, Roorkee, affirmed. No order as to costs. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) Dated:12-9-2006 ISB