Misc. Case No. 68 of 2006 · The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK L.A.A. No.54 of 2018 Union of India ....... Appellant Alekha Behera & Ors. ....... Respondents -Versus- For Appellant : Mr. B.S. Rayaguru, Central Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.1 Advocate : Mr. A. Tripathy, For Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Mr. B. Panigrahi, Addl. Standing Counsel ---------------------------- CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing & Judgment: 24.06.2024 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.K. MISHRA, J. 1. This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 06.02.2018 passed in L.A. Misc. Case No.68 of 2006 by the Court below, vide which it was held that the claimants are entitled to get the compensation @ Rs.4,000/- per decimal for acquiring the land of the Respondent No.1 and interest, so also solatium with other benefits as per statute. Page 1 of 8 2. As per the notification under Section-4 (i) of the Act, the L.A.O., Nayagarh, acquired lands of the Claimant/Respondent measuring Ac. 0.64 decimals of land in Plot No.994 of Kisam Sarad Jala Dofasal-II, under Khata No.100, situated at village- Chahali, P.S./Dist.-Nayagarh. Said acquisition was for the purpose of Khurda Road-Bolangir Rail Link Project. The L.A.O assessed the compensation in total at Rs.89,135/-. The said assessed compensation having been received under protest, the reference was made to the Court below, which was registered as L.A. Misc. Case No. 68 of 2006. 3. After giving opportunities to the parties to have their say and lead evidence, the Court below framed the following two issues:- “(1) What is the fair market value of the acquired case land at the time of publication of acquisition U/s.4(1) of the Act? (2) To what relief the claimant/petitioner is entitled for?” 4. The said issues were dealt with and answered together by coming to a conclusion that the claimant is entitled to get the compensation @ Rs.4,000/- (per decimals for acquiring his land and interest, solatium and other benefits as per statute. 5. The General Manager, East-Coast Railway, who was the Respondent No.2 before the court below, has preferred this
Decision
Appeal on the ground that the impugned judgment is perverse as Page 2 of 8 it was passed without following due procedure of law and the documentary as well as oral evidences on record have been overlooked by the Court below. 6. To substantiate the grounds taken in the Memorandum of Appeal, Mr. Rayaguru, learned Central Government Counsel submitted that the Court below has enhanced the compensation amount to Rs.4,000/- per decimal considering the Sale Deed marked as Exhibit-1 and the Kisam of the said land is Sarada-III. The said document should not have been taken into consideration for the purpose of comparison to enhance the compensation amount, as the kisam of the acquired land is Sarad Jala Dofasal-II. 7. Mr. Rayaguru, learned Central Government Counsel, relying on the judgment of this Court dated 09.01.2024 passed in L.A.A No.8 of 2019, further submitted that the suit land in the present Appeal was acquired as of in the case of L.A.A No.8 of 2019. The kisam of the suit land acquired in L.A.A No.8 of 2019 being Sarada Dofasali-II this Court upheld the judgment passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in the said Appeal holding the same to be just and proper compensation. Whereas, in the present case the suit land was of kisam Sarad Jala Dofasal-II, which is inferior to Sarada Dofasal-II kisam of land and the Page 3 of 8 referral Court in the present Case has awarded compensation of Rs.4000/- per decimal, for which the same needs interference. 8. Per contra, Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 submitted that the suit land in the present Appeal, though acquired under the same notification for the same purpose, and kisam of land is Sarad Jala dofasal-II, but the suit land belongs to another mouza having high market potentiality and there is no infirmity or illegality committed by the referral Court while passing the impugned judgment in L.A. Misc. Case No.68 of 2006. Relying on the same judgment, as was relied upon by the learned Central Government Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Tripathy further submitted that the Court below relying on Ext.1 has rightly awarded the said compensation. 9. Mr. Tripathy, drawing attention of this Court to various paragraphs of the impugned judgment submitted, though his client had filed petition under Section-18 of the L.A. Act indicating therein that before the acquisition of the concerned lands of his client, the other persons’ land had been sold @ Rs.5,00,000/- per acre and the market value of the concerned land in question, as on the date of issuance of notification was Rs.7,00,000/- per acre and the Petitioner (present Respondent No.1) was not willing to sell the land even at that rate. Page 4 of 8 10. Mr. Tripathy further submitted that the Court below, apart from oral evidences on record, referring to Ext.1 i.e. registered sale deed pertaining to an adjacent land, Kisam of which is Sarada-III and the consideration amount of the said land being Rs.4000/- per decimal, fairly enhanced the said compensation amount to Rs.4,000/- per decimal and there being no infirmity or illegality in the impugned award, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Mr. Tripathy submitted, the kisam of suit land is Sarada Jala Dofasal-II which is better than Sarada- III. The Court below, though took into consideration Ext-1 for enhancement of the compensation to Rs.4,000/- per decimal, failed to take note of the said fact and the compensation amount should have been more. Hence, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment. 11. Though a ground has been taken in the Memorandum of Appeal that the evidence on record favouring the present Appellant were not taken into consideration while passing the impugned judgment, it has not been specifically demonstrated before this court as to which portion of the evidences were not taken into consideration. A query being made, excepting Ext-1, as detailed above, learned Counsel for the Appellant also fails to demonstrate before this Court from the depositions available on Page 5 of 8 record, including evidence of OPW 1, as to which portion of the evidence was not taken into consideration while passing the impugned judgment. Rather, OPW No.1, during his cross- examination, has admitted that Serial No.6 of Ext.B (Sales Statistics) relates to the document, which was exhibited by the Petitioner in the court below (Respondent No.1 in the present Appeal) as Ext-1. 12. As is ascertained from the impugned judgment, the Court below, relying on the judgments reported in 2003 (Suppl.) OLR. 978 (NOC), Land Acquisition Officer Vrs. Trilochan Sahu, 108(2009) CLT 397, AIR 2007 SC 2458, 111(2011) CLT 764 and 2017 (II) CLR SC 889, 2017 (II) CLR 276, AIR 1975 SC 1670 and judgment reported in 2014 (Supp.-II) OLR 144 (Nityananda Namtoar & others Vs. L.A. Officer-cum-Collector, Keonjhar and another) so also the evidences on record, enhanced the compensation amount, as detailed above. 13. That apart, while passing the impugned judgment, the Court below, vide paragraph-11, relevant portion of which is extracted below, observed and held as follows:- “11. xxx xxx xxx Here tender the claimant/petitioner does not evidence of any expert. There is also no evidence to facilitate computation of the market value of the case land by capitalizing method. So the only method left for computing the market value of the Page 6 of 8 case land is through comparable sales or other instances. In the instant case, the claimant tender evidence of comparable sale instance by filing RSD no. 3899 of the year 2002, which revealed that an area of Ac.0.13 decimals of Sarad -III Kisam land in mouza-Chahali has been sold at a consideration amount of Rs. 52,000/-. But the acquired land is having its kissam Sarad Jala Dofasali-III. In my considered view, the guess work and oral evidence of petitioner for the purpose of ascertaining market value of the land the compensation. Hence, I am of opinion that the claimant is entitled for higher market value. in question strike me to enhance In the case at hand, the opposite parties failed to produce any authenticated document supporting the market value of the land fixed as discussed above. Thus, in the circumstances, while there is no direct evidence to ascertain the market value of the acquired land, the only course available is to it by guess estimate. Taking into ascertain consideration the available oral evidence and documents such as Ext-1 and submission of learned counsels for parties, it is clearly found that the market value of the acquired land was higher than the value given to the claimant. The L.A.O has estimated the value of the acquired land @ Rs. 950/- per decimal. As observed by Hon’ble Court in 2014 (Supp-II) OLR-144 at para 30 that compensation should neither be a bonanza for the claimants nor it should give a feeling in the mind of the claimants that an act of pittance is the shown locational advantage of acquired land in the said mouza, I am of the opinion that the claimants higher compensation @ Rs. 4000/- per decimal towards the valuation of the acquired land. Hence it is ordered: them". Thus, considering entitled are for to (Emphasis Supplied) 14. From the evidences on record and the reasons assigned by the Court below to enhance the compensation amount, as detailed above, so also in view of the settled position of law, Page 7 of 8 there being no infirmity in the impugned judgment, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. 15. Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed. 16. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 fairly admits to have received the compensation amount of Rs.89,135/- as assessed by the L.A.O. Hence, the Appellant is directed to comply the judgment passed by the Court below within 8 weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment. 17. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application as per rules. ….…….…………… S.K. Mishra, J. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. Dated, 24th June, 2024/ Monalisa Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MONALISA SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Odisha Date: 03-Jul-2024 18:26:21 Page 8 of 8