Land acquisition compensation upheld for three villages, claimants fail to prove inadequacy, burden of proof emphasized.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decisions in three villages regarding compensation for land acquisitions. The claimants failed to prove inadequacy of compensation, leading to restoration of the original awards set by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Reference Court's enhancements lacked sufficient legal evidence, with the High Court emphasizing the burden of proof on the claimants. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, confirming the restoration of original awards without issuing any cost orders.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of compensation for land acquisitions in three villages: Harthala, Mukkarrabpur, and Sonakpur.
2. Evaluation of the correctness of the Reference Court's enhancement of compensation.
3. Examination of the High Court's decision to restore the awards made by the Land Acquisition Officer.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Village Harthala:
The primary issue was the enhancement of compensation from Rs. 80 per square meter to Rs. 270 per square meter by the Reference Court. The High Court set aside this enhancement and restored the award of Rs. 80 per square meter made by the Land Acquisition Officer. The High Court observed that the claimants failed to establish a case for enhancement. The Land Acquisition Officer had scrutinized various sale deeds and found that the per square meter rate in 12 sale deeds was very low, ranging between Rs. 1.83 to Rs. 28.39 per square meter. The Reference Court's approach was criticized for not providing cogent reasons for discarding these sale instances. The High Court noted that the Reference Court did not adequately justify its decision to enhance the compensation and failed to compare the lands involved in the sale deeds with the acquired lands. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court, emphasizing that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation lies with the claimants. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's decision to restore the award of Rs. 80 per square meter was justified and dismissed the appeals.

2. Village Mukkarrabpur:
In this case, the Reference Court had enhanced the compensation based on an award in L.A.R. No. 134 of 1988, which was later set aside by the High Court. The High Court found that the evidence presented by the claimants was unreliable and the sale deeds relied upon were not comparable. The Reference Court's decision was deemed untenable as it lacked acceptable legal evidence to support the enhancement. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to restore the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, noting that the claimants failed to provide sufficient evidence for enhancement.

3. Village Sonakpur:
The Reference Court had enhanced the compensation from Rs. 11.59 and Rs. 22 per square meter to Rs. 290 and Rs. 350-390 per square meter, respectively. The High Court found that the Reference Court's decision was based on oral evidence and awards in other cases, which were not shown to be comparable. The High Court emphasized that the burden of proof was on the claimants to demonstrate that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's assessment, concluding that the Reference Court's enhancement was not supported by acceptable legal evidence and upheld the High Court's decision to restore the original awards.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court confirmed the High Court's decisions in all three cases, emphasizing that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation lies with the claimants. The High Court's restoration of the awards made by the Land Acquisition Officer was found to be justified as the Reference Court's enhancements lacked adequate legal evidence. The appeals were dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.

---