The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK L.A.A. No.02 of 2010 & batch In the matter of applications under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. ---------------------------- In L.A.A No.02 of 2010 Paradeep Phosphates Ltd., Khurda ....... Appellant L.A. Officer, Cuttack & Others ....... Respondents -Versus- In L.A.A No.06 of 2010 Paradeep Phosphates Ltd., Khurda ....... Appellant L.A. Officer, Cuttack & Others ....... Respondents -Versus- In L.A.A No.07 of 2010 Paradeep Phosphates Ltd., Khurda ....... Appellant -Versus- L.A. Officer, Cuttack & Others ....... Respondents In L.A.A No.08 of 2010 Paradeep Phosphates Ltd., Khurda ....... Appellant -Versus- L.A. Collector, Cuttack & Others ....... Respondents In L.A.A No.141 of 2009 Paradeep Phosphates Ltd., Khurda ....... Appellant -Versus- L.A. Collector, Cuttack & Others....... Respondents For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. P. Das, Advocate (In all the Appeals) For Respondents (In all the Appeals) : Mr. G.N. Rout, A.S.C. ---------------------------- CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA JUDGMENT 27.01.2023 S.K. MISHRA,J. 1. A common question of law arises in all these Appeals and they are accordingly disposed of by this common Judgment. Page 2 of 9 2. Being aggrieved by the Judgments passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Jagatsinghpur in batch of Land Acquisition cases; the Appellant-Company has preferred the present batch of Appeals on various grounds as detailed in the Memorandum of Appeals. 3. The brief background facts which lead to filing of the Appeals are that the case lands have been acquired by the State Government for the purpose of setting up of Paradeep Phosphates Limited, shortly, PPL vide Notification under Section-4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shortly, L.A. Act. A joint award was prepared in the name of the private Respondents and compensation at the rate of Rs.12,500/- per acre has been awarded. As the said rate of the compensation was very low and did not tally with the prevailing market value of the said local area, the case lands being of Kissam “Sarada”, so also fertile and adjoining to the National Highway, which is nearer to Paradeep Port Road within Paradeep N.A.C area, the Respondents prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount to Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. 4. References under Section-18 of the L.A. Act, 1894 were made by the Land Acquisition Collector (Civil), Cuttack to the Court below for determination of the compensation amount in respect of the acquired lands. Page 3 of 9 5. The Appellant-Company being noticed, filed its Written Objection before the Court below denying the averments made by the present Respondents. Finally the Court below, after taking into consideration the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, so also Judgments of the apex Court, various High Courts and this Court, enhanced the compensation amount to be paid at the rate of Rs.31,000/- per acre along with interest, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present Appeals. 6. Heard Mr. P. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, so also Mr. G.N. Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Respondent. 7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the impugned Judgments are illegal and deserve to be set aside as the Court below illegally directed to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.31,000/- per acre for the lands of the Petitioners (Respondents herein) under acquisition along with the additional market value at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of publication of notice under Section-4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act till the date of taking possession of the land, so also statutory solatium at the rate of 30% on the market value and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the year after acquisition and at the rate of 15% per annum for the subsequent years till the payment on the excess amount of compensation. Page 4 of 9 8. He further submits that on 11.02.2010, on intervention of the Hon’ble M.P. of Jagatsingpur, a settlement was arrived at amongst the Collector of Jagatsinghpur, Land Acquisition Officer of Jagatsinghpur and the representatives of the land loosers, whose lands were acquired by the State Government for the establishment of PPL. It was unanimously agreed vide said settlement that the land value will be at the rate of Rs.21,000/-per acre along with 13% interest. 9. Mr. Das further submits that since the said settlement was arrived on 11.02.2010 i.e. after the pronouncement of the impugned judgments, it could not be brought to the notice of the Court below as a piece of evidence, as a result of which the compensation, which was awarded earlier at the rate of Rs.12,500/- per acre, was enhanced to Rs.31,000/- per acre. 10. Mr. Rout, learned Counsel for the State-Respondent submits that the impugned Judgments needs no interference. He further submits that the Court below enhanced the compensation amount relying on the Judgment dated 26.06.2000 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in F.A. Nos.308 to 332 of 1998 in case of Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. v. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. reported in AIR 2000 Ori 161 : 90 (2000) CLT 217, which was confirmed by the apex Court as the series of SLPs Page 5 of 9 i.e. Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.18408-18432 of 2000, were dismissed vide a common Order dated 24.11.2000. 11. As is ascertained from the impugned Judgments, the Court below enhanced the compensation amount to Rs.31,000/- per acre with the following observations: “12. On considering the evidence and documents adduced and relied on by the parties, meticulously in respect of potentiality, productivity, situation, location and growing urbanization at the time of notification u/s.4 (I) of L.A. Act in respect of the acquired case land, I find the rate of market price of the said acquired case land would not different from the market price fixed by the Division Bench of our Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack in F.A. Nos.308 to 332 of 1998. The petitioners have also not led any evidence to show that their lands acquired by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2 for O.P. No. is superior for higher market price at rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. Hence, the market price fixed at the rate of Rs.12,500/- per acre was too low which is not in accordance with the market price prevailed in Mauza Chauliapalanda on the date of notification for acquisition of the land. On considering the Kissam, location, situation, productivity and potentiality of the value of the acquired land in the year 1985 and the submissions raised by both the parties, it would be proper to fix the market price for the said acquired case land at Rs.31,000/- per acre. Hence, it is ordered”. the (Emphasis supplied) Page 6 of 9 12. The Division Bench in case of Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. (supra) partially modified the impugned Judgment. The relevant paragraphs from the said judgment are extracted below: “7.5 In the decision, reported in AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2403, Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore v. H. Narayanaiah, etc. the apex Court held that judgment not inter parties would be relevant if they relate to similarly situated contain properties fairly determinations of value on dates proximate to the relevant date, in computing the market value of a particular piece of land. and 12. XXX XXX XXX Considering the valuation of lands mentioned in the sale deeds and the premium at which Exts. 2 and 3 are executed, potential value of the land, we are of the view that value of the land should be Rs. 31,000/- (Rupees thirty- one thousand) per acre. Accordingly we allow the appeals that compensation be calculated at the rate of Rs. 31,000/- per acre. XXX XXX XXX” in part and direct 13. Further, as it is ascertained from the Order dated 24.11.2000, whereby the apex Court dismissed the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.18408-18432/2000, arising out of the Judgment and Order of this Court dated 26.06.2000, passed in FA Nos. 308 to 332/1998, thereby confirmed the impugned common Judgment passed by this Court. Page 7 of 9 14. Learned Counsel for the Appellant fairly concedes before this Court that the lands in question acquired are of same Mouza and of similar Kissam and pertain to the same notification. 15. Learned Counsel for the State-Respondent submits that these Appeals are of the years 2009 & 2010. He further submits that the claimants/beneficiaries initiated number of execution proceedings for implementation and realization of the awarded amount and as there was no stay Order, the Appellant-Company has already implemented the Judgments of the Court below in number of cases by depositing the compensation amount with interest in the beneficiaries’ account. 16. In response to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the State-Respondent, learned Counsel for the Appellant-Company fairly concedes as to payments made to all the beneficiaries in terms of the Judgment passed by this Court, which was confirmed by the apex Court. 17. In view of such submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, the Appeals stand dismissed. 18. Since these matters are taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission on consent of the parties and the contesting private Respondents are yet to be noticed, needless to mention here that if the private Respondents have been paid in the Page 8 of 9 meantime in terms of the settlement arrived at between the representatives of the land loosers and the management of PPL, the differential amount with accrued interest in terms of the impugned Judgments shall be paid to them within four months from the date of this Judgment. …….….…………………… S.K. MISHRA, J. Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 27th January, 2023/Prasant Page 9 of 9