Misc. Case No. 82 of 2006 · The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK L.A.A. No.79 of 2018 Union of India ....... Appellant -Versus- Nirmal Chandra Dash and others ....... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. G. Mohanty, Senior Panel Counsel For Respondent No.1 : Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. A. Behera, Addl. Standing Counsel ---------------------------- CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing & Judgment: 14.12.2023 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.K. Mishra, J. This Appeal has been preferred by the Union of India, challenging the Judgment dated 08.02.2018 passed in L.A. Misc. Case No.82 of 2006, vide which rate of compensation has been enhanced to Rs.8,500/- by the Court below with interest, solatium and other benefits as per statute, though the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation @ Rs.1,486/- per decimal of land, with other statutory benefits. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. G. Mohanty, learned Senior Panel Counsel, drawing attention of this Court to the operative portion of the Judgment submits, the Court below has enhanced the compensation amount by process of guestimate, which is not permissible in the present facts and circumstances of the case, though the apex Court has held that for limited purpose, the guestimate process may be adopted. Mr. Mohanty, drawing attention of this Court to Ext.1 & 2 further submits, Ext.1 is the certified copy of Registered Sale Deed wherefrom, it is revealed that an area of Ac.0.04 decimals of Sarada Dofasli-I kisam of land was sold at a consideration amount of Rs.60,000/- and Ext.2, which is the certified copy of the Registered Sale Deed, demonstrates that an area of Ac.0.06 decimals of Sarada Dofasli-I kisam land was sold at consideration amount of Rs.72,000/-, which were executed on 11.02.2000 & 28.01.2000 respectively. The area of the acquired lands being small patches, the Court below erred in law to enhance the compensation amount to Rs.8,500/- per decimal from Rs.1486/- per decimal. Hence, the impugned Judgment dated 08.02.2018 passed in L.A. Misc. Case No.82 of 2006 deserves interference. L.A.A. No.79 of 2018 Page 2 of 7 3. In response to the said submissions made by Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Panel Counsel, Mr. Tripathy, learned Counsel for the private Respondent No.1, drawing attention of this Court to the various paragraphs of the impugned Judgment submits, in view of the findings as detailed in the impugned judgment, the present Appeal deserves to be dismissed in limine. Mr. Tripathy further submits, though the Court below ought to have award more compensation higher than what has been awarded, relying on Ext.1 & 2, has reduced the amount of compensation making it to almost half of the consideration amount of the land in question, as dealt vide Ext.1 & 2. At this juncture, it would be apt to reproduce below the relevant paragraphs of the impugned judgment. “7. The Petitioner claims for enhancement of compensation amount on the ground of market value of the acquired land. Evidence of the claimant should be scrutinized for just decision of this reference proceeding. In order to substantiate the case, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.3. P.W.3 stated that the acquired plots 607 & 608 of village Sinduria touches the extended limits of Nayagarh N.A.C. area. It is also stated in his affidavit evidence that acquired land situated adjacent to Sinduria-Barapalli road. There are residential houses of L.A.A. No.79 of 2018 Page 3 of 7 Abhimanyu Sarangi and others near the acquired land. It has been further stated that Holly Family School and Hospital, Fire Station, P.H.D. Office, Bebartapalli School and its village and Barapalli High School are in the close vicinity of the said acquired land, so the acquired lands have great potential value. xxx 8. xxx xxx xxx O.P.W.1 admitted that his house is situated at Sinduria at 500 meter distance from the acquired land. He also admitted that Ext.B reflects the factum of Ext.1 and Ext.2 which were prepared in the year 2000. Besides oral evidence, he exhibited Ext.A to Ext.D, which are the true copies of Working Sheets, Sales Statistics and copy of notice u/ss.9 & 12 of L.A. Act. So far as these exhibits are concerned, it reveals that those are not the certified copies, rather true copies attested by Land Acquisition Officer. But neither any officer was examined to prove the above document nor any explanation offered from the side of opposite party in this regard. 9. xxx The submission that process of “guestimate” is not applicable in the present reference is not acceptable, as the same judgment does not totally rule out the process of “guestimate”, but the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to hold that in limited purpose, the “guestimate” process may be adopted. In the L.A.A. No.79 of 2018 Page 4 of 7 above decision it has been further held that the market value of the acquired land is to be determined taking into consideration the locational / geographical situation, importance, existing use of the land, prospects and purposes to which the said land may be used, condition, advantages / disadvantages and potentiality in foreseeable future. 10. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 further submitted that price paid for a small plot cannot be the criteria for determining compensation for a vast area. In his support, the learned counsel for the O.P. relied on 2014 (Supp- II) OLR-144. In this respect, it may be submitted that ratio of the above mentioned case is not applicable in the case in hand due to different factual aspects. The acquired land in his reference proceeding has some locational advantages as discussed earlier. That cannot be overlooked while fixing market value of the acquired land. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 further submitted that price paid for a small plot cannot be criteria for determining compensation for a vast area. In is support, the learned counsel for the O.P. relied upon a ruling declared by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prithvi Raj Taneja Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others reported in 1977 AIR 1560. In this respect, it may be submitted that ratio of the above mentioned case is not applicable in the case in hand. Here, the L.A.A. No.79 of 2018 Page 5 of 7 land was acquired for Ac.1.32 decimals. Petitioner has exhibited Ext.1 & 2, in which, area of property were Ac.0.04 & Ac.0.06 decimals. They may be bigger in size, but not vast in comparison. 11. xxx The sale instance evidenced in Ext.1 & Ext.2 was found to have been executed before the date of issuance of the notification under Section-4 of the Act and also found place in Ext.B. But no evidence is forthcoming as to where and in what distance the land in question situated from the lands under Ext.1 & Ext.2. But it is also a fact that the lands in question and land under Ext.1 & Ext.2 belongs to same village, same Chaka and same Kissam. No village map was also filed to ascertain the exact location. xxx xxx xxx In my considered opinion, for the discussions as made above, I am of opinion that the claimant is entitled for higher market value. Considering the above, I am of the opinion that the claimant is entitled for higher compensation @ Rs.8,500/- (Eight Thousands and five hundred) per decimal towards the valuation of the acquired land. Hence it is ordered.” (Emphasis supplied) 4. From the discussions made in the impugned Judgment so also on perusal of evidences on record (L.C.R.), L.A.A. No.79 of 2018 Page 6 of 7 this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned award, deserving interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed. 5. In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, the Appellant is directed to act in terms of the impugned Judgment dated 08.02.2018 passed in L.A. Misc. Case No.82 of 2006 within a period of eight weeks hence. 6. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application as per rules. …….….…………………… S.K. MISHRA, J. High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 14th December, 2023 /Prasant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 18-Dec-2023 11:21:23 L.A.A. No.79 of 2018 Page 7 of 7