The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK LAA NO.125 OF 2013 In the matter of an appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act assailing the judgment dated 23.02.2013 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna in L.A.R. No.56 of 2012. ……… The Land Acquisition Officer, Bhawanipatna ::::: Appellant -:: VERSUS ::- Mauna Bewa & Others :::: Respondents. Advocate(s) who appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode:- For Appellant ::: Miss Samapika Mishra, ASC .For Respondents :::: Mr. M. Mohapatra, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D.DASH Date of Hearing ::03.01.2022 :: Date of Judgment.10.01.2022 The Appellant-State by filing this Appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short called as ‘the L.A. Act’) has challenged the judgment/award dated 23.02.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna in L.A.R. No.56 of 2012 in the matter of reference under section 18 of the L.A. Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Referral Court’). = 2 = 2. The land measuring Ac.1.18 decimals of Adi, Bahal, Mal and Atta kissam under six (6) plots appertaining to khata No. 14 in Mouza- Karlakhunta have been acquired for the purpose of construction of Turla Minor Irrigation Project vide notification dated 10.11.2003 followed by declaration dated 01.10.2004 in LA Case No.4 of 2003. The Land Acquisition Officer having assessed the compensation for the acquisition of the said land of the Respondents (claimants) at Rs.59,669/-, the Respondents (claimants) raised their objection. The matter thus has been referred to the Referral Court for determination of just and proper compensation. 3. The Respondents (Claimants) claim that the market value of the acquired land would be Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. Before the Referral Court, the Respondents (claimants) have examined two witnesses. P.W.1 is one of the claimants and P.W. 2 is an independent witness. The Referral Court upon consideration of evidence on record has held that the Respondents (Claimants) are entitled to compensation for their acquired land of all said kissams at the rate of Rs.1,35,000/- per acre. Accordingly, the Referral Court has directed the Appellant to compute the compensation and pay the same to the Respondents (Claimants) with all such other available statutory benefits. 4. Learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that the Referral Court although has found the evidence let in by the Respondents (Claimants) in support of their claim of enhancement of market value of the acquired land to be not satisfactory, has arbitrarily gone to determine the compensation of all the kissams of land at Rs.1,35,000/- per acre. It is submitted that such a course adopted by the Referral Court is impermissible in law and therefore, the = 3 = impugned judgment/award has to be set aside and the market value of the land need be heavily sealed down in consonance with the evidence on record. In support of the same, she having invited the attention of the Court to the depositions of P.Ws.1 and 2 submitted that the Referral Court should not have enhanced the market value of the land in question just on questionation. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondents (Claimants) submitted all in favour of the determination of market value of the land made by the Referral Court. According to him, the Referral Court upon analysis of evidence and ascertainment of the locational and other advantages including the facilities available in the surroundings; further taking into account its potentionality, as those emanate from the evidence on record has committed no mistake in taking a view that just and proper market value of all said kissams of land at the relevant time would be Rs.1,35,000/- per acre. He submitted that by filing the copy of the judgment/award passed by the Referral Court in another reference vide LAR No. 52 of 2012 as well as the order of the Govt. in the Department of Water Resources in showing the sanction of payment of said amount as determined by the Referral Court towards compensation of the land acquired in that proceeding. He also submitted that the lands involved in the present proceeding as well as in that reference are all of Atta, Bahal, Adi and Mal kissam and the Referral Court has determined the market value of the land at Rs. 1,35,000/- per acre exactly the same what has been determined in the present case. He further submitted that the said judgment/award has also been satisfied. Therefore, taking a cue from that, he urged that now there stands no justification to interfere with the judgment/award = 4 = dated 17.5.2014 impugned in this Appeal filed by the State as also the sanction order of the Govt. have been taken on record. which ought to be paid to the Respondents (Claimants). 6. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully read the judgment/award passed by the Referral Court. 7. The lands involved in the present proceeding are of Adi, Bahal, Mal and Atta kissams and those have been acquired for the purpose of construction of Turla Minor Irrigation Project vide notification dated 10.11.2003 followed by declaration dated 01.10.2004 in LA Case No. 4 of 2003. Perusal of the judgment/award passed by the said Referral Court in LAR Case No. 52 of 2012 on 17.5.2014 reveals that the land involved in that reference had also been acquired for the same purpose by same notification followed by declaration in the same case. In that case for acquisition of land measuring Ac.0.48 decimals of Atta, Bahal, Mal and Adi kissams. The Referral Court has determined the compensation at Rs. 1,35,000/- per acre. As against the claim of those claimants @ Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre, it further reveals that the compensation being so computed, Govt. in the Department of Water Resources has sanctioned for payment by its order dated 18.03.2016. This aspect is not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel. Here is a case where large chunk of land of different kisams belonging to the Respondents (claimants) has been acquired and, it is well inferable that the Respondents by such acquisition have not only lost their land for all times to come but also have been totally deprived of that source of income for all times to come in future. When other = 5 = land owners of the village whose lands have been acquired for the same purpose under the same Notification have been granted with compensation at the enhanced rate as afore-stated, it stands to no reason as to why the same standard would not be applied for determining the compensation towards the lands of the Respondents (claimants) which has been acquired. In fact the very object and reasons behind the introduction of the provision contained in section 28-A of the LA Act is loud and clear that the State should not be a party to the discriminatory treatment to the land loosers for the acquisition of their land under one notification and it does not stand to reason to pay less compensation to a land looser merely because he has not sought for the reference seeking enhancement of compensation when another similarly situated is being paid more only for having sought for a reference. Therefore, as per the provision of section 28-A of the LA Act all the land loosers would be entitled to get similar treatment in the assessment of compensation for the acquisition of his land if the compensation is determined at a higher rate in a reference made at the instance of another land looser whose land has been acquired under same notification, provided he moves the Competent Authority within three months of passing of said award in the reference subject to consideration that the lands are of the same quality and attached with same facilities/ benefits. With all the aforesaid, it is seen that the Referral Court in another reference has determined the market value of similar kissams of land, this Court is of the view that the market value of the lands as has been determined in the present reference needs no interference and thus be not tinkered with. = 6 = 8. In that view of the matter, the answer to the reference returned by the Referral Court does not warrant interference. 9. Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed without cost. 10. The Appellant is hereby directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with all the available statutory benefits/entitlement within four months hence and the payment to the Respondents (claimants) is only to be routed through the Referral Court and not in any other way and on the failure of the Appellant to deposit as aforesaid, the amount shall carry further interest @ 09% per annum till payment. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, it is felt expedient to direct the Referral Court that upon deposit of the amount as aforesaid by the Appellant; 80% of the same would be kept in unecumberable and non-pledgeable long term Fixed Deposit of ten years at the minimum in the name of the Respondents (claimants) upon due apportionment amongst them in accordance with their share as per law in any Nationalized Bank with monthly interest payable to them through their Savings Bank Accounts and the rest 20% shall be paid to the Respondents (claimants) by keeping the same in deposit in their Savings Bank Accounts in the said Bank where the Fixed deposit would be made. 11. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner = 7 = prescribed vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798, dated 15th April, 2021. Aks ………………….. D. Dash, J.