Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 13-Nov-2025 16:02:06 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK F.A.No.231 of 1982 (From the order dated 04.03.1982 passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Bargarh in L.A. Misc.Case No.141 of 1978) Land Acquisition Officer, Sambalpur …. Appellant Jailal Dash …. Respondent -versus- Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Appellant : Mr.G.Tripathy, AGA For Respondent : None CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing : 23rd October, 2025 Date of Judgment: 13th November, 2025 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- B.P. Routray, J. 1. Present appeal is directed assailing order dated 4th March 1982 of the learned Sub-Judge, Bargarh passed in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in L.A. Misc.Case No.141 of 1978. 2. The land of the claimant-Respondent measuring Ac.0.49 decimals in M.S. Plot No.8391 of nature ‘Berna’ in mouza Bargarh FA No.231 of 1982 Page 1 of 8
Legal Reasoning
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 13-Nov-2025 16:02:06 was acquired vide declaration No.28338 dated 26th April 1978 published in Odisha Gazette No.675 dated 16th May 1978 for construction of Cooperative Training Institute, along with some other lands. The compensation amounting to Rs.4,508/- was assessed by the Land Acquisition Authorities including additional compensation and statutory interest for the said land belonged to the claimant, which was paid to him and received with objections. 3. The claimant then preferred an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 praying for enhancement of the compensation amount and his contention is to count the market value of the acquired land at Rs.2,000/- per decimal at least. It was contended by the claimant that looking to the potentiality of the land and its location and other circumstantial factors, the valuation assessed by the authority at Rs.8,000/- per acre is too less and therefore, the same should be enhanced. 4. The claimant examined three witnesses on his behalf to support his claim. P.W.2 is the claimant himself. P.W.1 is the Mukhtar of a vendor in regard to the lands in the locality, who justified about the sale transaction made under Exts.1 and 2 at the rate of Rs.11,000/- per Ac.0.04 decimals and Rs.5,000/- for Ac.0.02 decimals vide Sale FA No.231 of 1982 Page 2 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 13-Nov-2025 16:02:06 Deed Dated 18th October 1976 and 6th April 1976 respectively. P.W.3 is a private Amin, who spoke about potentiality of the acquired land with reference to the sites in the neighborhood. 5. The Opposite Party-Authority (present Appellant) examined one witness as O.P.W.1, who was the Amin for acquisition of the said lands and he justified that reasonable compensation amount has been paid in respect of the acquired lands on the basis of sale statics for the relevant period, i.e. 19th September 1997 to 20th December 1997 in regard to Berna kissam of land of the locality. 6. ‘Berna’ kissam of land justifies the nature of land fit for construction of houses sites. The learned Sub-Judge taking into such kissam of the acquired lands and its potentiality as well as its location, which is proximate to Bargarh Railway Station and other factors has calculated the market value of the land at the relevant time at Rs.500/- per decimal and accordingly, assessed the total compensation amount to the tune of Rs.29,400/- in total, including additional compensation at the rate of 15% and 5% towards potential value. He thus finally directed for payment of differential compensation amount to the tune of Rs.24,000/- along with statutory interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 26th April 1978 till realization. FA No.231 of 1982 Page 3 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 13-Nov-2025 16:02:06 7. Challenging the same, it is submitted on behalf of the State authorities that such assessment for value of the land at Rs.500/- per decimal by the learned Sub-Judge is without any basis. It is further submitted that when the sale statics produced by the authorities for the purpose of assessing the market value of the land is not disputed by the claimant, the abrupt increase of the same to Rs.50,000/- per acre is illegal and arbitrary. 8. On perusal of the record, it is seen that proximity of the acquired land belonging to the claimant near Bargarh Railway Station as brought in evidences of the witnesses and as per the sketch map under Ext.3 is left undisputed. The sale deed under Exts.1 and 2 showing valuation of the land at such enhanced rate as a factor towards consideration in favour of the claimant was not accepted by the referral court, but the court drew a balanced approach to justify his assessment at Rs.500/- per decimal as the market value of the acquired land taking the potentiality of the land and its neighboring situation into consideration. Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 prescribes the factors to be considered for determining the compensation to be awarded for acquired land. It is observed in FA No.231 of 1982 Page 4 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 13-Nov-2025 16:02:06 Patiala Urban Planning & Development Authority v. Tarlochan Singh, (2020) 17 SCC 224, as follows; “9. In absence of comparative sale exemplars, the awards can be looked into and it has to be seen what was the basis of awarding compensation. The basis of determination in award has to be seen and that should be on judicially acceptable principle. Its value is not more than any sale exemplar and is not to be accepted readily. The similarity of land, distance has to be considered, besides it should be in close proximity of time before it is accepted as evidence. It has to be tendered in evidence and relevant facts for its acceptability have to be proved. 10. In Ram Kanwar v. State of Haryana [Ram Kanwar v. State of Haryana, (2020) 17 SCC 232] , sale exemplars are the best evidence and in absence of sale deeds awards can be looked into. Following observations were made: (SCC pp. 235-36, paras 11-13) “11. It is settled law that prices fetched for similar lands with similar advantages and potentialities under bona fide transactions of sale at or about the time of the preliminary notification are the usual and, indeed the best, evidence of market value of lands. 12. In Bangaru Narasingha Rao Naidu v. Revenue Divisional Officer [Bangaru Narasingha Rao Naidu v. Revenue Divisional Officer, (1980) 1 SCC 575] , this Court observed: (SCC p. 576, para 2) ‘2. There cannot be any doubt that the best evidence of the market value of the acquired land is afforded by transactions of sale in respect of the very acquired land, FA No.231 of 1982 Page 5 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 13-Nov-2025 16:02:06 provided of course there is nothing to doubt the authenticity of the transactions.’ 13. This Court in Charan Dass v. H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority [Charan Dass v. H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority, (2010) 13 SCC 398 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 933] has reiterated its aforesaid view and further observed: (SCC pp. 404-405, paras 21- 22) ‘21. One of the preferred and well-accepted methods adopted for ascertaining the market value of the land in acquisition cases is the sale transactions on or about the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act. But here again finding a transaction of sale on or a few days before the said notification is not an easy exercise. In the absence of such evidence contemporaneous transactions in respect of the lands which have similar advantages and disadvantages are considered as a good piece of evidence for determining the market value of the acquired land. 22. It needs little emphasis that the contemporaneous transactions or the comparable sales have to be in respect of lands which are contiguous to the acquired land and are similar in nature and potentiality. Again, in the absence of sale deeds, the judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisition of lands, made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages can be accepted as valid piece of evidence and provide a sound basis to work out the market value of the land after suitable adjustments with regard to positive and negative factors enumerated in Sections 23 and 24 of the Act. Undoubtedly, an element of some guesswork is involved in the entire exercise, yet the authority charged with the duty to award compensation is FA No.231 of 1982 Page 6 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 13-Nov-2025 16:02:06 bound to make an estimate judged by an objective standard.’ ” 9. In the case at hand, the evidences so adduced by the claimant as P.W.2 regarding the potentiality of his lost land could not be sufficiently rebutted in the cross-examination and it is confirmed by him upon suggestion made by the Appellant (Land Acquisition Authority) during cross-examination that Rs.500/- per decimal would be just for the purpose. It is further asserted by P.W.2 that the land was situating by the side of village road adjoining to it and thus having a greater potential for construction of house site. It further reveals from the statements of the witnesses that the acquired land of the claimant is near to the Mission Hospital, Church, Railway Station, Spinning Mill and Sugar Factory in the locality and it was having a number of residential houses nearby, including commercial establishments in the vicinity. Therefore, the learned Sub-Judge has rightly assessed the potential value of the land in question to be assessed at Rs.500/- per decimal for the purpose of compensation to be paid against Rs.80/- per decimal assessed by the Land Acquisition Authority to determine the compensation amount. Thus, no infirmity is seen in the approach of the learned referral court to grant the FA No.231 of 1982 Page 7 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 13-Nov-2025 16:02:06 enhanced compensation minus the amount already received by the claimant, with statutory interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 10. In view of the discussions made above and the reasons stated, no merit is seen in the appeal to interfere with the impugned award.
Decision
11. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. Judge ( B.P. Routray) C.R.Biswal, A.R.-Cum-Sr.Secretary FA No.231 of 1982 Page 8 of 8