The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK L.A.A No.38 of 2017 Land Acquisition Officer, Kalahandi …...... Appellant Anjali Purohit & Ors. ......... Respondents -Versus- Advocate for the parties For Appellant : Ms. S. Devi, ASC For Respondents : None ................... CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Judgment: 16.01.2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.K. MISHRA, J. 1. Though the tracking reports available on record indicate that the notices were duly served on the private Respondents, the said Respondents go unrepresented, when the matter is called. However, pursuant to order dated 13.12.2024, after taking instruction, learned Counsel for the State-Appellant submitted that the cause of action still survives in this Appeal and the impugned Judgment dated 10.05.2016 passed in LAR No.09 of 2016 is yet to be implemented by the State-Appellant. Hence, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. This Appeal has been preferred challenging the Judgment dated 10.05.2016 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna in LAR No.09 of 2016, vide which the Court below held that the Petitioners (private Respondents) are entitled to get the compensation @ Rs.4,00,000/- per acre for their acquired land of Mala Kisam, vide Plot No. 15 under Khata No.31 of mouza Patiguda relating to LA Case No.02 of 2009 along with other statutory benefits in terms of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, shortly, ‘Act’, 1894. 3. The factual matrix of this Appeal is that the Land Acquisition Officer, Kalahandi shortly, ‘LAO’, acquired the land of the private Respondents of an area of Ac.0.27 decimals of Mala Kisam vide Plot No.15 under Khata No.31 of Mouza Patiguda for the purpose of construction of Talijore MIP as per notification No.48916 dated 18.12.2009 under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act published vide declaration No.5408 dated 03.02.2011 in LA Case No.02 of 2009. The LAO assessed the compensation in total at Rs.15,972/- for an area of Ac.0.27 decimals, which the LAA No.38 of 2017 Page 2 of 8 Claimants/Respondents received on 30.06.2012 under protest claiming higher compensation. Thereafter, in a reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, which was registered as LAR No.09 of 2016, the referral Court, vide order dated 10.05.2016 allowed the claim of the Claimants/Respondents and ordered for higher compensation @ Rs.4,00,000/- per acre for acquisition of the land and ordered for payment of interest, solatium and other benefits as per the statute. Hence, this Appeal. 4.
Legal Reasoning
The impugned Judgment has been challenged basically on the ground that the Court below did not examine the validity of the award determined by the LAO within the parameters and mandatory guidelines stipulated under Sections 23 & 24 of the Act, 1894 and acted in excess of its jurisdiction, for which the impugned award is vitiated. Neither sufficient reason was assigned nor the circumstance under which it preferred to differ with the assessment of the market value of the land determined by the LAO, has been detailed in the impugned judgment. The Court below utterly failed in considering the contemporaneous materials under Ext.1 as well as the trustworthy evidence of O.P.W. No.1 in their proper perspective. There was no clinching piece of evidence on record enabling the Court below to compare the nature, situational advantages and potentiality of the acquired agricultural LAA No.38 of 2017 Page 3 of 8 land so also factum of similarity of the said land pertaining to its locational advantage, which could not be established by the Claimant by adducing any cogent documentary evidence. The Court below granted higher compensation @ Rs.4,00,000/- per acre by placing reliance on unsupported statements of interested witnesses. 5.
Legal Reasoning
Learned Counsel for the State-Appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the Memorandum of Appeal submitted that the sole basis of enhancing the compensation @ Rs.4,00,000/- per acre is Ext.1, which was of kisam Atta, whereas the suit land of the present Appeal was of kisam Mala and both the lands are of the same village. Learned Counsel for the State further submitted that the finding of the Court below is perverse, and the impugned judgment deserves interference. 6. However, in view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the State-Appellant, it would be apt to reproduce below paragraph-8 of the impugned judgment dated 10.05.2016 for ready reference. “ On a close scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the petitioners, it is found that the petitioners have not filed any document to show the yield capacity so also the profit derived from their acquired land for which capitalization method in the compensation can hardly be computing LAA No.38 of 2017 Page 4 of 8 adopted. The petitioners have relied upon Ext.1 i.e. certified copy of judgment passed by this curt on 19.01.2016 in LAR No.150 of 2014 and took the plea that their acquired land was identical to that of the lands acquired under Ext.1, for which the value of their acquired land should be calculated at par with the value of Ext.1. As found from the working sheet filed and relied by the OP vide Ext. A that there is no sale instance of Mala Kissam of land in the acquired village and the sale instance transacted @ ₹.38,800/- per acre for Mala Kissam of land in neighbouring village Tujung was available and the bench mark valuation of Mala Kissam of land was Rs.41,600/- per acre which was higher than said sale transaction and hence bench mark valuation @ Rs.41,600/- per acre was adopted as the market value for Mala Kissam of lands. relevant Admittedly the acquired land of the petitioners is of Mala Kissam of land. It is further admitted fact that this court has redetermined the value of Atta Kissam of land @ Rs.4,00,000/- per acre under Ext.1 which was acquired for the same project under the same notification of the present case. As such for the interest of justice and considering all factors the including the award of compensation redetermined by this court for different acquired lands under the same project for the notification held in the same year and on consideration of the location of the acquired lands together with their utility and potential value, it is felt by the court that if a compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs) only per acre for Mala Kissam of lands along with other statutory benefits will be redetermined, then it will be just and reasonable in the instant case.” (Emphasis Supplied) LAA No.38 of 2017 Page 5 of 8 7. Further, on perusal of the LCR, it is found that the Petitioner, who examined herself as P.W.1, in her evidence-in-chief has stated that the village Patiguda is adjoining to village M. Rampur, which is a semi-urban area and fast growing locality having College, School, High School, Courts, Hospital and Market Complexes within its boundary and situated adjacent to national highway from Raipur to Gopalpur. Apart from the same, she has further stated that due to demand of house site at M. Rampur, a fast growing semi urban area has been developed, for which they developed the acquired land into house site long before the acquisition and in their village, Mala kisam of land was sold @ Rs.5,00,000/- per acre before the notification was made under Section 4(1) of the Act 1894, as per the sale statistics obtained by the Opposite Party. It has further been stated that they are using the said agricultural land for the purpose of cultivation and earned out of the same. Apart from that she has also stated that the same court has re-determined the market value of Atta kisam of land of village Patiguda @ Rs.4,00,000/- per acre, which was acquired by the State for the same purpose under the same Notification, vide LAR Case No.150 of 2014 preferred by one Jaya Kumar Singh Deo, which was decided on 19.01.2016. During her examination-in- chief, the said Judgment passed in LAR No.150 of 2014 was also LAA No.38 of 2017 Page 6 of 8 marked as Exhibit-1 without any objection. 8. It is found from the evidence of P.W.1 that the said statement of P.W.1 regarding potentiality of the land because of situational advantage remained unchallenged during her cross- examination. Further from the evidence of O.P.W.1, who is the concerned Amin, it is found that during his cross-examination, he has admitted that he had not verified the case land village. He also admitted that the lands of Jaya Kumar Singh Deo at village Patiguda were acquired for the same project and also admitted that he has not prepared Ext.A and has no direct knowledge with regard to Ext.A. 9. However to disbelieve the statement of the P.W.1 so also to protest the further claim made by the Petitioners (present Respondents), no specific evidence has been laid by the State Opposite Parties before the Court below excepting that the market value of the lands were determined by the LAO based on the sale instances and the compensation paid to Petitioners is just and proper. Further, on examination of Ext.A, it is found that no sale instances of Mala kisam of land so far as village Patiguda is concerned and the sale statistics, as disclosed vide Ext.A, is pertaining to the neighboring village i.e. M. Rampur Tujung. LAA No.38 of 2017 Page 7 of 8 10. In view of the said evidence on record so also the observation made by the Court below, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment passed in LAR No.09 of 2016 and the Appeal preferred by the State deserves to be dismissed. 11. 12. Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, the State- Appellant is directed to implement the Judgment dated 10.05.2016 passed in LAR No.09 of 2016 within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this Judgment. 13. Since the Respondents did not appear despite due notice, Office is directed to communicate a copy of this Judgment to the Court below so also the Respondents. …….…………………… S.K. MISHRA, J. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. Dated, 16th January, 2025/ Mona Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MONALISA SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Odisha Date: 22-Jan-2025 17:49:41 LAA No.38 of 2017 Page 8 of 8