The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK F.A. No.167 of 1997 (In the matter of an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act) Mrs. Indira Panigrahi …. Appellant -versus- Land Acquisition Officer, Ganjam …. Respondent Appeared in this case:- For Appellant For Respondent : : Mr. G. Mukharji, Sr. Advocate and Ms. K. Banarji, Advocate Mr. S. Patnaik, Learned Additional Government Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA JUDGMENT Date of hearing : 09.07.2024 / date of judgment :26.07.2024 A.C. Behera, J. This 1st appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the inadequacy of an award passed on dated 11.04.1997 by the learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Berhampur in M.J.C. No.133 of 1978 in answering the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short „L.A. Act, 1894‟) made by the Land Acquisition Officer, Ganjam, Chhatrapur(respondent in this appeal). // 2 // 2.
Legal Reasoning
The factual backgrounds of this appeal, which prompted the appellant for preferring the same is that, she(appellant) is the owner of the acquired land and its building vide Survey No.337/1A at Bijipur inside Berhampur Town, which was acquired in the year 1976 by the Government of Orissa through notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. For acquisition of the said land and building of the appellant, a sum of Rs.8,250/- towards the value of the land at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per acre, a sum of Rs.3,500/- towards the value of the building and a sum of Rs.1,762.50 Paise towards additional compensation in total of Rs.13,512.50 Paise were assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Chhatrapur to be paid to the appellant, to which, she(appellant) received with protest and submitted an application on dated 20.01.1977 before the Land Acquisition Officer, Chhatrapur for making a reference to the said acquisition matter under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the Civil Court for payment of higher compensation amount stating that, she(appellant) is entitled to get compensation of Rs.43,120/- towards the value of the land and building, Rs.4,719/- towards Stamp duty of her sale deed for purchasing the acquired land and Rs.500/- towards registration fee and Rs.1,000/- towards the preparation of the plan for the building in total Rs.49,339/-. After receiving that application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Page 2 of 12 // 3 // Act, 1894, the Land Acquisition Officer, Chhatrapur, referred the said matter to the court of the learned Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Berhampur for its answer through proper adjudication. The said reference of the Land Acquisition Officer, Chhatrapur was initiated as M.J.C. No.133 of 1978 before the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Berhampur, wherein the applicant/appellant became the claimant/petitioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Ganjam, Chhatrapur became Opposite Party. During hearing of that M.J.C. No.133 of 1978, the petitioner examined two witnesses on her behalf as P.Ws.1 and 2 and relied upon the documents vide Exts.1 to 7 including the sale deed vide Ext.1, through which, she had purchased the acquired land on dated 26.08.1975. Whereas the Opposite Party (Land Acquisition Officer, Chhatrapur) neither examined any witness on his behalf nor proved any documents from his side. After conclusion of hearing and on perusal of the materials, documents and evidence available in the record, the referral court, i.e., learned Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Berhampur allowed the said M.J.C. No.133 of 1978 in part on contest in favour for the petitioner(appellant) on dated 11.04.1997 entitling her(petitioner) to get compensation of Rs.16,280/- towards the cost of the acquired land and Rs.3,500/- towards the cost of the building along with all other statutory benefits, i.e., Page 3 of 12 // 4 // solatium and interest on the said amount as per law, assigning the reasons that, previously for the same purpose, the properties involved in the reference was acquired by the Government through notification, but, that notification was quashed by the Hon‟ble High Court in O.J.C. No.500 of 1973. Thereafter, the subsequent notification was made under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1976 for acquisition of the self-same properties involved in the reference along with other properties. As the petitioner has purchased the acquired land on dated 26.08.1975 through sale deed vide Ext.1, then, presumption arises that, “the petitioner has purchased the acquired land after the quashing of the earlier notification of the acquisition of self-same properties only in order to get more compensation in the subsequent acquisition of the same properties indicating inflated amount as consideration in the sale deed dated 26.08.1975 vide Ext.1, for which, the consideration amount indicated in the sale deed dated 26.08.1975 vide Ext.1 cannot be a guiding factor for deciding the land value of the acquired land.” 5. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid award passed on dated 11.04.1997 in M.J.C. No.133 of 1978 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 awarding less amount than her claimed amount, she(petitioner/appellant) challenged the same by preferring this 1st appeal being the appellant against the Opposite Party(Land Acquisition Page 4 of 12 // 5 // Officer, Ganjam, Chhatrapur) arraying the Land Acquisition Officer, Ganjam, Chhatrapur as a respondent for enhancement of the awarded compensation amount on the ground of inadequacy/improper taking several grounds in her appeal memo. 6. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the Land Acquisition Officer, Ganjam(respondent) and so also have perused the materials, documents and evidence available in the record. 7. Basing upon the application of the appellant/petitioner/claimant dated 20.01.1977 for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, materials, evidence and documents available in the record, the final order dated 11.04.1997 passed in M.J.C. No.133 of 1978, the grounds taken by the appellant/claimant in her appeal memo and the
Legal Reasoning
rival submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides, the crux of this appeal is, Whether the impugned order/award passed in M.J.C. No.133 of 1978 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ganjam on dated 11.04.1997 in M.J.C. No.133 of 1978 less than the claimed amount of the petitioner/appellant is sustainable/acceptable under law? Page 5 of 12 // 6 // It is the admitted case of the parties that, the land in question was acquired through notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the year 1976. The acquired land in question was purchased by the appellant/petitioner on dated 26.08.1975, which is much prior to the acquisition of the land in question. Therefore, learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Berhampur has specifically indicated in para no.4 of the impugned order that, admittedly, acquired land in question was purchased by the appellant/petitioner/claimant through Ext.1(sale deed) prior to its acquisition. 9. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Berhampur has awarded amount, i.e., Rs.19,780/-(which is less than the claimed amount) in favour of the petitioner/appellant as per the impugned order passed in M.J.C. No.133 of 1978 assigning the specific reasons that, “the petitioner/claimant has purchased the land in question on dated 26.08.1975 through sale deed vide Ext.1 only in order to get more compensation anticipating about the acquisition of the same in future by putting inflated amount in that sale deed as consideration amount, for which, the rate indicated in the sale deed vide Ext.1 cannot be guiding factor for determination of the compensation amount.” 10. The aforesaid reasons assigned by the referral court in awarding compensation in favour of the petitioner/appellant less than her claimed Page 6 of 12 // 7 // amount without taking the consideration amount indicated in her purchase deed vide Ext.1 as the guiding factor for the determination of adequate/proper compensation are baseless. Because, the reasons assigned above by the referral court in the above final order passed in M.J.C. No.133 of 1978 are on surmises/imaginations without being backed by(supported by) any authentic material, evidence or document, for the reason that, the acquired land in question was purchased by the petitioner/claimant much prior to the acquisition of the same, while there was no proposal of the Government for acquisition of the same in future. Therefore, the aforesaid reasons assigned by the referral court for passing the award on the basis of surmises and conjectures cannot be sustainable under law in view of the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) 2010(2) Civil Law Times-204(S.C.) : Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota vrs. Shukla and Brothers—Reasoning in Rule of law— Significance—When the reason for a law once ceases, law itself ceases(Wharton‟s Law Lexicon). (ii) (2015) 1 CCC-640(Rajasthan) : Atul Kuchhal vrs. Hem Ram & another—An order which does not Page 7 of 12 // 8 // reveal ground for coming to conclusion, falls in the category of being non-speaking order.(Para-7) (iii) 2010(2) Civil Law Times-34(S.C.) : Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall vrs. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and others— Reasons—Recording of reasons is principle of natural justice—So, every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing, which ensures transparency and fairness in decision making.(Paras-31, 32, 33) 12. Here, in this appeal at hand, when the reasons assigned by the referral court for passing the impugned final order in M.J.C. No.133 of 1978 are on the basis of surmises and conjectures, then at this juncture, the impugned order has come within the category of a non-speaking order in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon‟ble Courts and Apex Court. For which, the impugned order/award passed in M.J.C. No.133 of 1978 by the referral court cannot be sustainable under law. 13. So far as the determination of the compensation amount as per the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is concerned, On this aspect, the guidelines have already been made in the ratio of the following decisions:- Page 8 of 12 // 9 // (i) 2002(2) OLR-228 : Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Collector, Kalahandi. vrs. Baladev Chandrakar— Land Acquisition Act—Compensation— Determination of just and adequate compensation—Price prevalent at the time of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is pertinent.(Paras-2 and 3) (ii) 2021(1) CLR-1172(S.C.) : Acquainted Realtors LLP etc. etc. vrs. State of Haryana and Others— Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4, 6 and 23—Compensation Claim—Assessment of—In a case where pre-acquisition sale instances are otherwise found to be adequate and appropriate, post-acquisition instances by themselves cannot out way and discard such pre-acquisition sale instances. (iii) 2023(1) CCC (S.C.)-164 : State of Haryana and Anr. vrs. Subhash Chander & Ors.—Land Acquisition Act, 1894.—Section 18—Acquisition of land.—Quantum of compensation must be based on current market value of land. (iv) 2023(1) CCC-439 (Bombay) : Chandaba W/o. Gangaram Pauyed and Ors. vrs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.—Land Acquisition Act, 1894.—Sections 18 and 26—Reference has to be decided by Civil Court on the basis of material before it on merits. Page 9 of 12 // 10 // (v) 2022(2) CCC-225 (S.C.) : Sh. Ram Chander (Dead) Thr Lrs vrs. Union of India—Acquisition of land.—The claimant shall have to be paid compensation along with all other statutory benefits, which may be available under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 14. Here this case at hand, when in the sale deed dated 26.08.1975 vide Ext.1, the vendor of the appellant/claimant/petitioner has indicated the consideration amount of the acquired land as Rs.33,000/- as the value of the acquired land and she has received the same from the petitioner/claimant, then as per law, the petitioner/claimant shall be entitled to the said amount, i.e., Rs.33,000/- towards the value of the land Rs.10,000/- towards the value of the building constructed thereon after its purchase Rs.4,719/- towards Stamp duty, Rs.500/- towards registration fee and Rs.1,000/- towards the expenditures incurred for obtaining plan for construction of the building thereon, i.e., in total Rs.49,219/- from the State for the acquisition of her land and building along with all other statutory benefits, i.e., solatium and interest thereon as provided under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 15. Here, in this appeal at hand, when the materials available in the record are going to show that, the claimant/appellant is entitled for Rs.49,219/- in total for acquisition of her land and building as per the prevailing current market value at the time of acquisition on the basis of Page 10 of 12 // 11 // the value indicated in the undisputed sale deed dated 26.08.1975 vide Ext.1 prior to the notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act, 1894 for the acquisition of the land in question and when the petitioner/appellant has already received Rs.13,512.50 Paise out of Rs.49,219/-, therefore, the appellant is entitled for the rest amount, i.e., Rs.35,706.50 Paise as enhanced compensation in respect of her acquired land and building along with all other statutory benefits, i.e., solatium and interest on the said amount as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 16. As per the discussions and observations made above, when in the impugned order, passed in M.J.C. No.133 of 1978, the referral court has awarded less amount than the entitled amount of the appellant/claimant, then at this juncture, there is justification under law for making interference with the impugned award passed in M.J.C. No.133 of 1978 by the referral court through this 1st appeal preferred by the appellant/claimant. For which, there is merit in the appeal of the appellant/claimant. The same must succeed. Hence, the order.
Decision
O R D E R 17. The appeal be and the same filed by the appellant/claimant is allowed on contest against the respondent, but without cost. Page 11 of 12 // 12 // 18. The impugned order/award dated 11.04.1997 passed in M.J.C. No.133 of 1978 by the learned Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Berhampur is set aside. The reference issued by the Land Acquisition Officer, Ganjam, Chhatrapur under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is answered entitling the petitioner/appellant to get the rest amount, i.e., Rs.35,706.50 Paise as compensation along with all other statutory benefits, i.e., solatium and interest on the said amount as per the L.A. Act, 1894. The respondent/Opposite Party is directed to pay the above compensation amount with all the statutory benefits, i.e., solatium and interest on the said amount to the petitioner within a month hence positively, failing which, the petitioner/appellant can realize the same with prevailing interest on the same from the respondent/Opposite Party as per law. Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 26th of July, 2024/ Jagabandhu, P.A. ( A.C. Behera ) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 26-Jul-2024 13:50:42 Page 12 of 12