Misc. Case No. 03 of 2002 · The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK L.A.A. No.153 of 2008 State of Odisha ....... Appellant Betangi Sahu & others ....... Respondents -Versus- For Appellant : Mr. B. Panigrahi, Addl. Standing Counsel For Respondents : Mr. A.K. Nath, Advocate ---------------------------- CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing & Judgment: 26.02.2024 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.K. Mishra, J. This Appeal has been preferred by the State- Appellant, challenging the judgment dated 28.10.2006 passed by the Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Athamallik in L.A. Misc. Case No.03 of 2002. 2.
Legal Reasoning
The brief background facts, which led to filing of this Appeal, are that the State Government has acquired the land measuring Ac.0.083 decimals pertaining to Plot Nos.463, 470, 473, 427,463 and 732 under Khata No.46 of Mouza Krushnapur pursuant to declaration No.4969 dated 24.02.1989 published in the Extraordinary Gazette dated 03.03.1989 from the Respondents for the purpose of construction of Talcher-Sambalpur Rail Link. After considering all the relevant materials pertaining to the acquired land, the compensation payable for the acquired land was determined @ Rs.12,500/- per acre in respect of Sarad-I Kisam of land, Rs.12,500/- per acre in respect of Baje Phasala-1 kissam of land, Rs.10,000/- per acre in respect of Sarad-III Kisam of land, Rs.15,000/- per acre in respect of Gharabari kisam of land and Rs.750/- towards sanding trees. The Respondents received a sum of Rs.15,996/- towards compensation, including all statutory benefits. Being aggrieved by the said awarded compensation, the Respondents raised objection. Ultimately, the said objection was referred to the Civil Court for determination under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was registered as L.A. Case No.03 of 2002 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Athamallik. The referral Court, after taking evidence from both sides, came to a conclusion that the value of the acquired land is to be enhanced. Accordingly, the Court below, vide judgment L.A.A. No.153 of 2008 Page 2 of 7 dated 28.10.2006, enhanced the compensation amount to Rs.40,000/- per acre in respect of Sarad-I Kisam of land, Rs.30,000/- per acre in respect of Baje Phasala-1 kissam of land, Rs.40,000/- per acre in respect of Sarad-III Kisam of land, Rs.50,000/- per acre in respect of Gharabari kisam of land with a consolidated amount of Rs.1,500/- towards the sanding trees. Apart from the above, it was directed to pay the other statutory benefits such as solatium, interest etc as per law. 3. The State/Appellant has challenged the said judgment passed by the Court below basically on the ground that the Court below failed to appreciate the materials and evidence on record. The said judgment has further been challenged on the ground that the Court below failed to examine the validity of award determined by the Land Acquisition Officer within the parameter and mandatory guidelines as stipulated under Sections 23 & 24 of the Act, 1894 and its findings are contrary to the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants. It is the further case of the Appellant that the Court below, without considering the materials available on record in its true L.A.A. No.153 of 2008 Page 3 of 7 prospective and based on an unreasonable guess work, arbitrarily enhanced the compensation amount to the extent as indicated above. 4.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. B. Panigrahi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State/Appellant submits, the referral Court enhanced the compensation amount basing on the oral evidences of P.W.1 & P.W.2 only, who are the interested witnesses. He further submits, the Court below has passed the impugned award without assigning any cogent reasons to differ with the assessment of market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Mr. Panigrahi further submits, the Court below has enhanced the compensation amount by resorting to rational guess work, which is not permissible in the facts and circumstances of the present case, though the apex Court has held that for limited purpose, the guestimate process may be adopted. Accordingly, he submits that the impugned judgment passed by the Court below deserves to be set aside. 5. In view of such submission made by the learned State counsel, on perusal of the impugned order, it is ascertained that the Court below has observed that P.W.1 & L.A.A. No.153 of 2008 Page 4 of 7 P.W.2 have supported the case of the Respondents in all material particulars and there is clear and cogent evidence on record to show that the Respondents were growing three crops in a year out of the acquired land. It is also ascertained from the evidence of P.W.1 & P.W.2 available in the L.C.R. that no question was put to them during course of cross-examination about the yielding capacity of the acquired land to annul the statement made by them in their Affidavit Evidence. That apart, it would be apt to reproduce below the relevant paragraphs of the impugned judgment. “7. XXX The acquired land are valuable land. He was growing three crops in a year. The 1st as well as the 2nd crop were paddy and the 3rd crop was vegetable crop. From the 1st and 2nd crops he was getting net profit of Rs.18,000/- by spending of Rs.5,000/-. From the 3rd crop he was getting Rs.5,000/- by spending of Rs.1,000/-. P.W.1 further stated that there was some mango, saguan, pijuli, lembu and panasa tree over the acquired land at the time of acquisition. From the above trees he was getting some profit and maintaining his livelihood. There are school, R.I. Office, Forest Office, Govt. Hospital L.A.A. No.153 of 2008 Page 5 of 7 are situated at a distance of 2.K.M. from the case land. 8. P.W.2 has fully supported the case of the petitioner. As per his statement, the petitioner was growing three crops in a year out of the acquired land. He has further stated that there were some valuable fruit bearing trees on the acquired land by the time of acquisition. Apart from that the market value of the acquired land would be Rs.1,00,000/- per acre by the time of acquisition and that there were every facilities available near the acquired land. 9. P.W.1 & P.W.2 supported the case of the Petitioner in all material particulars. There is a clear and cogent evidence on record to show that the petitioner was growing three crops in a year out of the acquired land. So taking all these aspect into account, I arrive at the conclusion that the petitioner would be able to raise three crops in a year. The compensation awarded to the petitioner is inadequate to purchase the same extend of land of same kisam which was acquired by the L.A. Authority. (Emphasis supplied) L.A.A. No.153 of 2008 Page 6 of 7 6. From the discussions made in the impugned Judgment so also on perusal of evidences on record, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned award, deserving interference by this Court. 7. 8. Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed. As the Appeal is dismissed, the Appellant is directed to act in terms of the impugned Judgment dated 28th October, 2006 passed in L.A. Case No.03 of 2002 within a period of eight weeks hence. 9. Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Court below. …….….…………………… S.K. MISHRA, J. High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 26th February, 2024 /Prasant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 07-Mar-2024 10:16:42 L.A.A. No.153 of 2008 Page 7 of 7