news details |
|
|
| HC dismisses appeal | | Controversy Over Cost of Land | |
Early Times Report
Jammu, Jan 30 : Justice JP Singh today in an appeal filed by the State of J&K & Ors Vs Rameshwar Chander and ors dismissed the appeal of the State with cost Rs 10,000.Land measuring 18 kanals 9 marlas comprised in Khasra Nos. 419, 420 and 426 min situated at Reasi was acquired for construction of P.H.E. Complex Reasi pursuant to Declaration made under Section 6 of the State Land Acquisition Act, 1990 (1934 A.D.) vide Notification No.23 of 1995. On the basis of deliberations held by a Committee of Collectors, the following rates were approved by Collector (Sub Divisional Magistrate), Reasi as compensation for the acquired land. 1. Rs.22,000/- per kanal for Warhal Awal. 2. Rs. 16,000/- per kanal for Banjar. 3. Rs.2,500/- per kanal for Gairm umkin. On the basis of the evidence produced by the owners, the learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the rates fixed by the Collector were irrational and arbitrary and the market value of the acquired land was Rs.40,000/-, Rs.30,000/- and Rs.15,000/- per kanal for Warhal Awal, Banjar and Gairm umkin respectively.He, accordingly, issued his Award on 28.07.2005 sanctioning enhanced compensation in favour of the owners on the basis of determined market value of the acquired land.The State of Jammu and Kashmir and Collector, Reasi have come up in Appeal against the Additional District Judge's Award. The Court after hearing the parties observed that While appreciating evidence of the respondents, the learned Additional District Judge found that the oral evidence of the owners was not only supported by Sale Deeds placed by them on records evidencing sales of land situated in Notified Area Committee, Reasi but also by written Report of Munshi Ram, Patwari Halqa Reasi who had stated, in unequivocal terms, that the market value of the land in the area was Rs.40,000/- per kanal when property in question was acquired. Patwari's statement was based on facts which, according to him, the documents evidencing transfer of possession and sale in the area would so demonstrate. The evidence produced by the respondents, which was supported by the Report of the concerned Patwari, who is the best person to know about sale and purchase of lands in the area at the relevant time when Notification under Section 6 was issued, looked from any angle, cannot be said to be sketchy, improbable and unrealistic, as projected by the learned State counsel. Even otherwise evidence produced by the respondents had stood the test of cross-examination and was supported by other documentary evidence including Patwari's Report. This evidence has been rightly relied upon by the Additional District Judge, in that, nothing was brought on records by the appellants to rebut the owners' evidence. The findings recorded by the Additional District Judge, Reasi on the issues framed in the case are well merited which do not warrant interference in Appeal. The findings of the Additional District Judge on Issue Nos. 1 to 3 are, therefore, affirmed and dismissed the appeal of the state with cost 10,000. JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
