The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Oct-2025 18:10:16 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FA No.272 of 1993 (From the judgment dated 07.09.1993 passed by the learned Sub- ordinate Judge, Chatrapur in M.J.C.No.38 of 1987) Land Acquisition Officer, Ganjam, Chatrapur …. Appellant -versus- Telesu Kasinath Subudhi and Others …. Respondents Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Appellant : Mr. G.Tripathy, AGA For Respondents : Mr. B.K.Mohanty, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 10th October, 2025 B.P. Routray, J. 1. Heard Mr. G.Tripathy, learned AGA for the Appellant and Mr.
Legal Reasoning
placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court in Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal [Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal, (2011) 6 SCC 47 : (2011) 3 SCC (Civ) 178] as well as K.S. Shivadevamma v. Commr. and LAO [K.S. Shivadevamma v. Commr. and LAO, (1996) 2 SCC 62] . In the present case, as the only sale deed on which reliance was placed (Ext. PW 1/2) stands rejected, there is no other exemplar in the form of sale deed. The learned counsel wants us to “guesstimate” the market value. In Trishala Jain [Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal, (2011) 6 SCC 47 : (2011) 3 SCC (Civ) 178] , the Court laid down the circumstances when application of “guesstimate” principle is to be applied. This can be found in para 65 of the said judgment which reads as under: (SCC p. 68) “65. It will be appropriate for us to state certain principles controlling the application of ‘guesstimate’: (a) Wherever the evidence produced by the parties is not sufficient to determine the compensation with exactitude, this principle can be resorted to. (b) Discretion of the court in applying guesswork to the facts of a given case is not unfettered but has to be reasonable and should have a connection to the data on record produced by the parties by way of evidence. Further, this entire exercise has to be within the limitations specified under Sections 23 and 24 of the Act and cannot be made in detriment thereto.” FA No.272 of 1993 Page 6 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Oct-2025 18:10:16 24. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, and having peculiarity of the present appeals where there is total absence of exemplars, we are of the opinion that some increase, but only marginal one, can be ordered over and above the circular rates fixed by the government orders. In Land Acquisition Officer v. Karigowda [Land Acquisition Officer v. Karigowda, (2010) 5 SCC 708 : (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 531] , following pertinent observations were made by this Court: (SCC p. 740) “90. … The Court is entitled to apply some [amount] of reasonable guesswork to balance the equities and fix a just and fair market value in terms of the parameters specified under Section 23 of the Act.” 25. This Court can indulge in the some reasonable guesswork to balance the equity for fixing just and fair market value. In the absence of any other exemplar in the form of sale deed, though it is difficult to say as to what extent the actual market value was higher in contradistinction to the value of land fixed by the Government in the aforesaid notifications, we are of the opinion that as a thumb rule an increase of Rs 1,00,000 per acre be granted, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case”. 11. In the present case, the land was situating adjacent to the National Highway near Rambha and its status was an agricultural land prior to its acquisition. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, 4 and other witnesses, the land yielded two crops per annum before its acquisition and undoubtedly, it was within the jurisdiction of Rambha Notified Area Council. It is the admitted case of the parties that such FA No.272 of 1993 Page 7 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Oct-2025 18:10:16 lands belonging to Mouza-Rambha have been assessed at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre and the present land being in the Mouza- Kothadwarapalli have been assessed at lesser price than the lands under Mouza- Rambha. It is true that present land is not that potential equal to the land belonging to Mouza- Rambha and the evidences produced on record from the side of the owner of the land is silent on this aspect. Considering the status of the land as agricultural in nature yielding two crops per year the potentiality of the land to make its valuation is the consideration to be kept in mind. At the same time, the petitioner produced a copy of the sale deed under Ext.3 executed on 24th November 1984, wherein the value of a land for three cents has been made at Rs.1,500/-. It is to be mentioned here that the actual acquisition was effected on 29th June 1985 as per Ext-F though the initial notification under Section 4 was made on 8th August 1983. 12. The State has no answer to counter the value of the land sold under Ext.3 of same Mouza- Kothadwarapalli. The evidences adduced from the side of the State is only to the effect regarding assessment of valuation made by the expert engineers. It is admitted by O.P.W.2 & 3 that they have not visited the spot, i.e. the land of the Claimant. So prima facie it appears that such evidence with regard to value of the FA No.272 of 1993 Page 8 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Oct-2025 18:10:16 land given from the side of the State is a technical approach without the spot visit. In Cement Corporation of India v- Purya, (2004) 8 SCC 270, it has been observed that; “35. A registered document in terms of Section 51-A of the Act may carry therewith a presumption of genuineness. Such a presumption, therefore, is rebuttable. Raising a presumption, therefore, does not amount to proof; it only shifts the burden of proof against whom the presumption operates for disproving it. Only if the presumption is not rebutted by discharging the burden, the court may act on the basis of such presumption. Even when in terms of the Evidence Act, a provision has been made that the court shall presume a fact, the same by itself would not be irrebuttable or conclusive. The genuineness of a transaction can always fall for adjudication, if any question is raised in this behalf. Xx .. .. xx .. xx …. 39. While it is clear that under Section 51-A of the LA Act a presumption as to the genuineness of the contents of the document is permitted to be raised, the same can be relied upon only if the said presumption is not rebutted by other evidence. In the said view of the matter we are of the opinion that the decision of this Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer v. V. Narasaiah [(2001) 3 SCC 530] lays down the correct law.” FA No.272 of 1993 Page 9 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Oct-2025 18:10:16 13. From the evidence given by different witnesses from the side of the Petitioner (claimant), the potentiality of the land could be well assessed based on the valuation mentioned in the sale deed under Ext.3. Therefore, the learned Sub-ordinate Judge has rightly concluded the assess the cost of land of Rs.50,000/- per acre to determine the compensation amount at Rs.37,000/- for Ac.0.74 decimals, as acquired by the Government. 14. Similarly, the valuation of the well as per the evidences brought from the side of the Claimant including the cost of excavation and the probable cost thereof does not make the assessment of the Court inappropriate to value the same at Rs.6,000/- to be paid towards compensation. 15. The State is unable to figure out any specific contradiction in the evidence of witnesses and particularly to Ext.3, to deviate from such assessment made by learned Sub-ordinate Judge for assessing the compensation amount. Further, the grant of solatium @ 30% and additional interest @ 15% per annum being well-settled in such matters of compensation for land acquisition, no fault can be found on the part of the learned Sub-ordinate Judge to interfere with the impugned order. FA No.272 of 1993 Page 10 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Oct-2025 18:10:16 16.
Arguments
B.K.Mohanty, learned counsel for Respondents. FA No.272 of 1993 Page 1 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Oct-2025 18:10:16 2. Present appeal is directed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the compensation assessed in terms of the reference made under Section 18 of the Act. 3. This is second round of journey of the Appellant against referral assessment made by the Court. Earlier, State as well as the owner of the land had preferred two appeals in First Appeal No.197 of 1990 and First Appeal No.173 of 1990 against the order passed by the Sub- ordinate Judge in the present reference. This Court vide common order dated 12th August 1992 passed in both the appeals had remanded the matter back to the referral Court for fresh adjudication of the reference. Consequently, the learned Sub-ordinate Judge heard both parties afresh and decided the issues in controversy vide impugned order dated 7th September 1993 passed in M.J.C. No.38 of 1987. As per the impugned order, the cost of the land acquired was calculated at Rs.50,000/- per acre and the cost of the well was determined at Rs.6,000/-, payable along with solatium @ 30% with additional interest @ 15% per annum from the date of notification till the enhanced payment is made subject to adjustment of the amount already received by the owner. FA No.272 of 1993 Page 2 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Oct-2025 18:10:16 4. During pendency of the appeal sole-Respondent owner died and his LRs were substituted. 5. It is submitted by Mr. Tripathy, learned AGA on behalf of the State that fixation of the cost of acquired land at Rs.50,000/- per acre is erroneous being without any basis, whereas the market value of the acquired land in the concerned Mouza should not be more than Rs.15,000/-. Such assessment of learned Sub-ordinate Judge against the assessment made by the authority at Rs.15,000/- per acre is a serious error committed on the part of the Court. It is further submitted that present Mouza- Kothadwarapalli though comes within the NAC of Rambha but is not of that value in respect of such lands in the Mouza-Rambha. Therefore, taking the valuation at the higher rate is not permissible in the present facts of the case. 6. Conversely, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Owner submits that the basis of assessment made by the Court is the document of the year 1984 where the cost of the land was mentioned at Rs.1,500/- for three cents and accordingly the present assessment made by the Sub-ordinate Judge @ of Rs.50,000/- per acre cannot be faulted with, though at the lower side on the estimation of the owner. He further submits that the cost of ‘well’ valued at Rs.6,000/- is too FA No.272 of 1993 Page 3 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Oct-2025 18:10:16 less and nevertheless, the Respondents have accepted such valuation without making any challenge to the same. 7. As seen from record, Ac. 0.74 decimals of land belonging to the original respondent of Mouza- Kothadwarapalli out of total land of Ac.1.20 decimals was acquired by the Government for expansion of the national highway vide notification dated 8th August 1983 made under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Earlier a compensation amount of Rs.13,096.50/- was paid as compensation in favour of the owner of the land including the cost of land and the well situated over it. The original Respondent received the compensation amount with his objection and then raised a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhancement of the compensation amount. 8. In order to prove his case, the original Petitioner, before the Sub-ordinate Judge, examined five witnesses whereas three witnesses were examined from the side of the State. Among them P.W. 4 and 5, examined by the owner, were considered as relevant witnesses who are the son of the claimant and an expert engineer respectively. Similarly, O.P.W. 1 was the draftsman of Land Acquisition Office, O.P.W. 2 and 3 are engineers of National Highway Authority. Besides FA No.272 of 1993 Page 4 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Oct-2025 18:10:16 the oral evidences, the original Petitioner relied on four documents and the State relied on eleven documents in support of their respective cases. 9. It is seen from the evidence adduced from the side of the original Petitioner that he examined himself as P.W.1 and his son as P.W.4. P.W.5 was examined in the capacity of an expert engineer in order to assess the cost of construction of the well in the acquired land. It is true that the Court did not grant any compensation for the left out land though the same were remained uncultivable and fragmented upon acquisition of major portion of the same to the extent of Ac. 0.74 decimals. However, the owner did not prefer any challenge to the assessment made by the referral Court and therefore, this Court does not incline to enter into such aspect. 10. It is well settled that for assessment of the actual valuation of the land acquired, various factors including the potentiality of the land and the cost of constructions, if any, made over the land are important factors amongst others. In Krishan Kumar vs- Union of India & Anr., (2015) 15 SCC 220, it has been observed that; “23. We would like to point out at this stage the argument of Mr Shishodia, learned Senior Counsel who appeared in FA No.272 of 1993 Page 5 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Oct-2025 18:10:16 some of these appeals, to the effect that in the absence of any evidence of exemplar depicting sale value, the court is required to do guesswork. In support of this proposition, he
Decision
In the result, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. Judge ( B.P. Routray) S.Das, Sr.Steno FA No.272 of 1993 Page 11 of 11