The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK L.A.A. No.8 of 2019 Union of India ....... Appellant Alekh Behera & Ors. ....... Respondents -Versus- For Appellant : Mr. C.K. Pradhan, Sr. Panel Counsel
Legal Reasoning
For Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate For Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : Mr. B. Panigrahi, ASC ................... CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA _____________________________________________________________ Date of Hearing and Judgment: 09.01.2024 _____________________________________________________________ S.K. MISHRA, J. 1. Though the matter is listed under the heading “Fresh Admission”, on being noticed on the question of limitation, since the private Respondents have already rendered appearance and the pleadings of the parties so also evidences led before the court below, including exhibits marked from the side of the parties have been annexed to the appeal memo, instead of admitting this Appeal, which is of the year 2019 and Page 1 of 7 calling for the LCR, on consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 27.12.2018 passed in L.A. Misc. Case No.67 of 2006 by the Court below, vide which it was held that the claimants are entitled to get the compensation @ Rs.1800/- per decimal for acquiring land and interest, so also solatium with other benefits as per statute. 3. As per the notification under Section-4 (i) of the Act, the LAO, Nayagarh, acquired lands of the claimants measuring Ac. 0.15 decimals of land in plot no.747/1577 and Ac. 0.11 decimals of land, out of Ac. 0.16 decimals in plot no.752, both of Kisam Sarad Dofasali-II, under Khata no.127, situated at village-Khuntabandha, P.S./Dist.-Nayagarh. Said acquisition was for the purpose of Khurda Road-Bolangir Rail Link Project. The LAO assessed the compensation in total at Rs.30,316/-. 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. 67 of 2006. 4. After giving opportunities to the parties to have their say and to 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? Page 2 of 7 (2) To what relief the claimant/petitioners is entitled for?” 5. The said issues were dealt with and answered together by coming to a conclusion that the claimants are entitled to get the compensation @ Rs.1800/- (per decimals for acquiring their land and interest, solatium and other benefits as per statute). 6. The General Manager, East-Coast Railway, who was the Respondent No.2 before the court below, has preferred this appeal on the
Decision
ground that the impugned judgment is perverse as it was passed without following due procedure of law and the documentary as well as oral evidences have been overlooked by the court below. 7. To substantiate the grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal, Mr. Pradhan, learned Senior Panel Counsel submits, the Court below has enhanced the compensation amount to Rs.1800/- per decimal considering the Sale Deed marked as Exhibit-1, which has been annexed to the memorandum of appeal as at Annexure-6 and the Kisam of the said land is homestead. 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 Dofasali-II. 8. 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, but it has not been Page 3 of 7 specifically demonstrated before this court as to which portion of the evidences were not taking 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 record, including evidence of OPW 1 , as to which portion of the evidence was not taken into consideration while passing the impugned judgment. 9. Per contra, Mr. Tripathy, learned Counsel for the private Respondent Nos.1 & 2, drawing attention of this Court to various paragraphs of the impugned judgment submits, 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 clients, 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 notification issued, was Rs.7,00,000/- per acre and the Petitioners (present Respondent Nos.1 &2) were not willing to sell the land even at that rate. 10. Mr. Tripathy further submits, in view of the settled position of law as well as reasons assigned in the impugned judgment, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. The court below, apart from oral evidences on record, referring to Exhibit-1 i.e. registered sale deed pertaining to a adjacent land, Kisam of which is Gharabadi and the consideration amount Page 4 of 7 of the said land being Rs.3000/- per decimal as per Exhibit-1 , fairly enhanced the said compensation amount to Rs.1800/- per decimal and there being no infirmity or illegality in the impugned award, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 11. 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. 12. 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 the claimants/petitioners do not tender 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 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.2526 dtd.16.6.04 which shows that Ac. 0.07 decimals of Gharabadi land under mauza – khuntabandha were sold at Rs. 21,000/- (Rs. 3,000/- per decimal) and situated adjacent to road as revealed from boundary recital. But the acquired land is having its Page 5 of 7 kissam Sarad Dofasali-II and under kuatra chaka. The petitioner claim that the lands were acquired from middle of plots and the lands were kept for residential purpose and the above facts remain unrefuted. xxx xxx xxx Even though lands transacted under EXT-1 situated under different chaka but situated not so far from acquired land as evident from map produced by the petitioner, although O.P.-2 challenged the maps and location of land but not bothered to file any map to refute the stand of petitioners. In my considered view, the guess work and evidences of petitioner for the purpose of ascertaining market value of the land in question strike me to enhance the compensation. Hence, no doubt I am of opinion that the claimant is entitled for higher market value but not equal to valuation as per EXT-1. Taking into consideration the available such as Ext-1 and evidence and documents 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 in total Rs.30,315/- for 0.26 decimal of lands. 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 shown to them”. Thus, considering locational advantage of acquired land in the said mouza, I am of the opinion for higher that compensation @ Rs.1,800/- per decimal towards the valuation of the acquired land. Hence it is ordered.” claimants are entitled the the (Emphasis supplied) 13. 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, there being no infirmity in the impugned judgment, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. 14. Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed. Page 6 of 7 15. Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 fairly admits to have received the compensation amount of Rs.30,316/- 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. 16. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application as per rules. ….……………… S.K. Mishra, J. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. Dated, 9th January, 2024/ Banita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation: SR. STENOGRAPHER Reason: AUTHENTICATION Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 16-Jan-2024 10:50:18 Page 7 of 7