Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

State of Bihar Vs. Salim Khalifa

State of Bihar vs Salim Khalifa

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Jharkhand Decided Sep 30, 2004
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/522382

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Jharkhand High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
A.F.O.D. No. 121 of 1995 (R)
Subject
Property
Disposition
Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 [C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 173(1) Proviso; [D. Biswas, Amitava Roy & I.A.Ansari, JJ] Appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation Maintainability - Held, If the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal ...

Key legal issue
Property
Outcome / disposition
Appeal dismissed
Acts & sections
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 18, 23(2) and 28

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State of Bihar

Advocate Manjul Prasad and; Manoj Kumar, Advs.

Respondent

Salim Khalifa

Advocate B. Prasad and; V. Gopal, Advs.

Legal References

Acts
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 18, 23(2) and 28
Reported In
[2005(2)JCR69(Jhr)]

Excerpt

.....without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. no formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. the provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of section 173 of the act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the statutory deposit is made either with the memo of appeal or on such date as may be permitted by the court. no specific order condoning any delay for the purpose of deposit under first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 173 is necessary. [new india assurance co. ltd. v md. makubur rahman, 1993 (2) glr 430 and new india assurance co. ltd. v smt rita devi, 1997(2) glt 406, approved. new india assurance co. ltd. v birendra mohan de, 1995 (2) gau lt 218 (db) and union of india v smt gita banik, 1996 (2) glt 246, are not good law]. - 5000/- per decimal and the valuation of the well at rs......land was first class paddy land. the applicant on various other accounts sought reference of the award under section 18 of the land acquisition act and land acquisition officer also referred the case to the land acquisition judge and the land acquisition judge, after considering the evidence oral and documentary brought on record, fixed the compensation @ rs. 5000/- per decimal and the valuation of the well at rs. 15,000/-was assessed. the applicant was also held to be entitled for additional compensation @ 30% as provided under section 23(2) of the l.a. act. the applicant was also found entitled for interest @ rs. 12% on the amount of excess compensation as required under section 28 of the l.a. act.4. learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that amount of land as he has been assessed by the land acquisition judge is very excessive and further that other benefits have also not been given according to law.5. on the other hand, claimant has examined seven witnesses and besides that sale-deeds have been brought on record and after scrutiny of which, the learned court below has come to finding that the land is to be valued @ rs. 5000/- per decimal and he has accordingly valued the land @ rs. 5000/- per decimal and awarded other benefits as per law admissible under the various provisions of the land acquisition act.6. in that view of the matter, i do not find any illegality and irregularity in theimpugned judgment and award and accordingly this appeal is dismissed. but inthe circumstances, without any order as to costs.

Full Judgment

Hari Shankar Prasad, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.9.1994 and award dated 5.10.1994 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 11/ 1993, whereby and whereunder the learned Subordinate Judge I, cum Land Acquisition Judge, Palamau at Daltongaj allowed the reference and enhanced the compensation.

2. Pursuant to the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act published in the District Gazette. 0.78 acre of land, fully described in the foot of the plaint, has been acquired by the State of Bihar, which was owned and possessed by the applicant and due to acquisition the applicant has been dispossessed. The land has been acquired for construction of Malay Water Scheme. After acquisition, the Land Acquisition Officer assessed the valuation and decided the compensation to be paid to the applicant a Rs. 23,758.05 which the applicant claimed that it is inadequate and amount of compensation is very low. The land of the applicant has been acquired by the State of Bihar for construction of Malay Water Scheme. The applicant filed objection for determination of the award with regard to classification of lands and also the rate at which the amount of compensation was worked out.

3. The applicant-claimant claimed that the lands were Dhan one land because applicant by his hard labour and after investing money had made the land very fertile. There was also irrigation facilities so paddy etc. were grown up 40 to 50 mounds. The land was also suitable for commercial purposes because it was situated near PWD road and the land in question is situated near the Block Office etc. It was also pointed out that applicant also claimed that compensation has not been fixed according to market value and the classification has not been properly done and the lands of the near by area has been sold at Rs. 5000/-per decimal and other lands were also sold @ Rs. 3,333/- per decimal and applicant is liable to be paid compensation at the higher rate because the petitioner's land was first class paddy land. The applicant on various other accounts sought reference of the award under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and Land Acquisition Officer also referred the case to the land acquisition Judge and the Land Acquisition Judge, after considering the evidence oral and documentary brought on record, fixed the compensation @ Rs. 5000/- per decimal and the valuation of the well at Rs. 15,000/-was assessed. The applicant was also held to be entitled for additional compensation @ 30% as provided under Section 23(2) of the L.A. Act. The applicant was also found entitled for interest @ Rs. 12% on the amount of excess compensation as required under Section 28 of the L.A. Act.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that amount of land as he has been assessed by the Land Acquisition Judge is very excessive and further that other benefits have also not been given according to law.

5. On the other hand, claimant has examined seven witnesses and besides that sale-deeds have been brought on record and after scrutiny of which, the learned Court below has come to finding that the land is to be valued @ Rs. 5000/- per decimal and he has accordingly valued the land @ Rs. 5000/- per decimal and awarded other benefits as per law admissible under the various provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

6. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality and irregularity in theimpugned judgment and award and accordingly this appeal is dismissed. But inthe circumstances, without any order as to costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial