Surat Singh (Dead) by Lrs. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), section 7: [r.v. raveendran & j.m. panchal, jj] cancellation of cast certificate caste certificate issued to appellant sent to vigilance cell for verification - report of enquiry officer not stating that it was forged - only stating that spelling of caste was subsequently corrected in school register on basis of which caste certificate was issued -authority who issued certificate not examined report of enquiry officer not stating that interpolation was done by appellant - opinion of hand-writing expert not obtained by committee - caste certificates issued to close relatives of appellant not considered by committee held, order of committee cancelling certificate of appellant is liable to be set aside. fact that appellant did not possess basic knowledge of traits, characteristics, customs and culture, of his tribe is not a ground to cancel certificate. order1. this case relates to the notification issued under section 4(1) of the land acquisition act, 1894 published on october 24, 1961. the land acquisition officer in his award dated december 16, 1964 granted compensation at the rate of rs. 2,000/- per bigha. on reference, the additional district judge by his award and decree dated may 20, 1970 enhanced, the compensation varying between rs. 2,600/- to rs. 3,000/- per bigha in respect of abc blocks. the high court in the impugned judgment dated september 11, 1984 enhanced the compensation to the uniform rate of rs. 7,000/- per bigha. dissatisfied therewith, the claimants have filed these appeals.2. though there is some force in the contention of learned senior counsel for the appellants that there is a difference between the earlier cases arid this case, since the notification in the earlier cases dated back to 1959 and this notification to 1961, the sale instances relating to the small pieces of land cannot be solely relied upon when lands of an extent of around 16000 and odd bighas is acquired. there is no proof of these sale transactions. moreover, even if they were true, 1/3rd of the value towards development charges has to be deducted. this exercise was not done. even if it is done, the appellant will get less than what was awarded by the high court. under these circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment and order made by the high court since the state did not file any appeal.3. the appeals are accordingly dismissed. no costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. This case relates to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 published on October 24, 1961. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award dated December 16, 1964 granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per bigha. On reference, the Additional District Judge by his award and decree dated May 20, 1970 enhanced, the compensation varying between Rs. 2,600/- to Rs. 3,000/- per bigha in respect of ABC Blocks. The High Court in the impugned judgment dated September 11, 1984 enhanced the compensation to the uniform rate of Rs. 7,000/- per Bigha. Dissatisfied therewith, the claimants have filed these appeals.

2. Though there is some force in the contention of learned senior counsel for the appellants that there is a difference between the earlier cases arid this case, since the notification in the earlier cases dated back to 1959 and this notification to 1961, the sale instances relating to the small pieces of land cannot be solely relied upon when lands of an extent of around 16000 and odd bighas is acquired. There is no proof of these sale transactions. Moreover, even if they were true, 1/3rd of the value towards development charges has to be deducted. This exercise was not done. Even if it is done, the appellant will get less than what was awarded by the High Court. Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment and order made by the High Court since the State did not file any appeal.

3. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.