Misc. Case No. 28 of 2000 · High Court
Case Details
FA No.295 of 2001 & LAA 40/02 22 17.7.2013 Both the appeals under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1994 (for short the Act) having arisen from the same award passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur in LA Misc. Case No.28 of 2000 those are taken up together to be disposed of by this common order. 2. In FA No.295 of 2001 the claimant No.1 is the appellant. After the death of the claimant, late Narasingh @ Nrusingha Chandra Nanda, his son Gokulananda Nanda has been substituted. In LAA No.40 of 2002, the Land Acquisition Collector, Jagatsinghpur is the appellant. Another claimant namely Daitari Nanda has been arrayed as respondent No.2 in both the appeals. While in FA No. 295 of 2001, the appellant claims more compensation on different counts in LAA. No.40 of 2002, the appellant challenges the impugned award on the ground that the determination of the market value made by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) is excessively high. 3. Land measuring A 0.67 decs. appertaining to six plots in two different Khata of Mouza Ghadimul in the district of Jagatsinghpur belonging to the claimants (deceased appellant and respondent no.2 in FA No.295 of 2001) was compulsorily acquired by the Government for construction of Capital Embankment of river Devi (left) in village Ghadimul under notification No.45014 dated 18.9.1997 made under section 4(1) of the Act. The land acquired under the notification consisted of different kissams, such as Bari, Bagyat and Gharabari, in respect of which the market value per acre was computed at - 2 - Rs.80,000/- 7,2000/- and Rs.90,000/- respectively, by the L.A. Collector. 4. Being not satisfied with the determination of the market value made by the LA Collector with regard to Bari and Gharabari kissam of land, the land owner-claimants demanded a reference under section 18 of the Act. The referral court i.e., the Civil Judge, (Senior Division) after collecting evidence determined the market value of both the kissams of land @ Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. Accordingly, he made the award allowing compensation @ Rs.1.5 lakh per acre and directed that all the benefits admissible under the Act as amended in 1984 be extended to the claimants. 5. The claimants have preferred the appeal (FA No.295 of 2001) on the grounds that (i) possession of the acquired land having been taken over by the State in the year 1981 compensation ought to have been awarded from that year instead of the year 1997 in which notification under
Legal Reasoning
section 4(1) of the Act was made; (ii) The trial court ought to have awarded compensation towards loss of crops and standing trees; and (iii) compensation on account of severance of small portions of land left unacquired rendering the same useless, ought to have been awarded in favour of the claimants. 6. LA Collector/appellant in LAA No.40 of 2002 challenges the award contending that in the absence of any convincing material on record the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) ought to have taken the statistics prepared by the LA Collector as the basis of determination of the market 2 - 3 - value of the acquired land. 7. The claimants do not challenge the market value of the acquired land as determined by the learned Lower Court. Their main grievance is that since possession of the acquired land was taken over in the year 1981 consequent upon a declaration dated 7.4.1981 made under section-6 of the Act (Ext.5), they were deprived of income from the land in question and yet no compensation has been awarded for loss of income. The learned lower court has refused to accept the contention on the ground of lack of materials in support thereof. 8. It is true that in the year 1981 there was a declaration published in the Orissa Gazette (Extra ordinary) on 7.4.1981 but there is no documentary evidence showing that possession of the acquired land was taken over by the State Government in 1981. Save and except the bald statement of P.W- 3 that possession of the acquired land was taken over about 20 years prior to his making deposition in the court, there is no other evidence to support that claim. There cannot be any presumption under law that from the date of publication of the declaration under section 6 of the Act possession was taken over by the Collector. Sections 16 and 17 of the Act lay down the provisions regarding taking possession of acquired land. It is not shown that soon after the declaration under section 6 of the Act, the Collector took possession of the acquired land either under section 16 or section 17 of the Act. In the facts and circumstances, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) has rightly refused to accept this 3 - 4 - contention of the claimants. As a result grounds-(i) and (ii) (supra) are found not tenable. 9. The ground –(iii) was also raised before the lower court but it was rightly rejected due to want of evidence to show that the portions of land belonging to the claimants which were left unacquired were rendered useless consequent upon acquisition of the acquired land. According to the claimants, out of A 0.41 of land appertaining to plot No.874, Ac 0.37 only was acquired leaving the rest A 0.04 decimals by the side of the embankment making it useless for any purpose. Similarly out of Ac 0.09 of of land in plot No.858 and Ac 0.09 of land in plot No.873 an area Ac 0.07
Legal Reasoning
each was acquired. It is contended that the small pieces of land left unacquired were rendered useless and therefore compensation should have been paid on that count. But no evidence has been adduced showing that the small portions of land left unacquired were actually rendered useless. Rather it is found from the sale deeds exhibited in the LA Misc. Case that small pieces of land measuring A 0.01 of Gharabari kissam have been sold at a higher price. It is claimed by the claimants that all their land was fit for homestead purpose. Therefore, it cannot be believed that the small portions of land appertaining to the above mentioned plots became useless or value less, because of severance of small portions from the acquired land of the claimants. Therefore, the ground (iii) is also found not tenable. In the result FA 295 of 2001 is found to be devoid of any merit. 10. Supporting the grounds taken in LAA 40 of 2002, the learned counsel for the State has argued that the 4 - 5 - determination of market value of the acquired land made by the LA Collector, being on the basis of land transactions contemporaneous to the time of acquisition of the case land, is quite authentic whereas the sale transaction vide Ext.1 which is accepted by the court as the basis for determination of market value of the acquired land being in respect of a very small piece of land, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. Ext.1 is a certified copy of registered sale deed dated 29.5.1993. It involves sale of Ac 0.01 of land of Bari Kissam. It is true that transactions in respect of small piece of land should not be made the basis for determining the market value of large patch of land. In the case at hand it is seen that the sale statistics relied on by the LA Collector do not contain any sale transaction in respect of Gharabari kissam of land. So far as Bari kissam of land is concerned there is only one sale transaction of the year 1997 which is apparently not accepted by the Land Acquisition Officer as the basis for determination of market value of the acquired land. Under such circumstances, the sale statistics cannot be the basis for determination of market value. On the other hand, the transaction vide Ext.1, though involves a small patch of land, took place 4 years prior to the notification under section 4(1) of the Act. During the intervening period of 4 years, the market value of land situated in that locality and which was fit for homestead must have got increase considerably. The valuation determined by the lower court may appear to be somewhat on the higher side but this Court is not in favour of interfering with the award made by the learned lower court particularly for the reason that since 5 - 6 - the time of acquisition more than 15 years have elapsed. For the aforesaid reasons, the contention raised in LAA No.40 of 2002 is also found to be not tenable. 11.
Decision
In the result both the appeals stand dismissed. The impugned order is confirmed. There shall be no order as to cost. R. Dash,J. …….…………….. 6