Misc. Case No. 09 of 2007 · The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK L.A.A. No.14 of 2017 (In the matter of an application under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894) Union of India ....... Appellant -Versus- G.B. Nayak & others ....... Respondents Advocate for the parties For Appellant : Mr. P.K. Parhi, D.S.G.I. For Respondent Nos.1 & 3 to 9: Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : None For Respondent Nos.10 & 11 : Mr. S.K. Parhi, Addl. Standing Counsel ---------------------------- CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing & Judgment: 08.01.2025 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.K. Mishra, J. This Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant-Union of India challenging the Judgment dated 12th January, 2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nayagarh in L.A. Misc. Case No.09 of 2007, vide which the referral Court held that the Claimants/Petitioners (present private Respondents) are entitled to get compensation @ Rs.1,500/- per decimal for their lands, apart from the interest, solatium, market value and other benefits as per the statute. 2. The factual matrix of the present Appeal is that, the Government has acquired the lands of the private Respondents (Claimants/Petitioners before the Court below) for Khurda Road-Bolangir New B.G. Rail Link Project. The acquired lands appertain to an area of Ac. 0.02 decimals in Plot No.845, Ac. 0.95 decimals in Plot No.730, Ac. 0.03 decimals in Plot No.475 and Ac. 0.78 decimals in Plot No.456 under Khata No.13 of Mouza-Khutubandha, PS/Dist: Nayagarh. The Claimants/Petitioners received the compensation of Rs.2,07,752/-, which includes solatium and market value from the Government on 09.01.2007 with objection on the ground that the said compensation was too low. The present Respondent No.1, who was the Petitioner No.1 before the Court below, namely, Gagan Bihari L.A.A. No.14 of 2017 Page 2 of 10 Nayak, being authorized by all the Claimants/Petitioners, filed a petition, which was referred for adjudication to the referral Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, shortly hereinafter, ‘L.A. Act’. After giving opportunity to the parties to have their say so also lead evidence and taking into consideration the said pleadings and evidence on record, the Court below held that the present private Respondents (Claimants/ Petitioners before the Court below) are entitled to get compensation @ Rs.1,500/- per decimal for their lands apart from interest, solatium, market value and other benefits as per the statute. Hence this Appeal. 3. The present Appeal has been preferred basically on the ground that even though the Court below observed that the R.S.D. marked as Ext.1 is not an example to compare the valuation of the acquired land of the Respondents/Claimants, at the same time it enhanced the compensation amount in a whimsical manner without assigning any reason. A further ground has been urged that though Ext.A shows the actual value L.A.A. No.14 of 2017 Page 3 of 10 of the acquired land at the time of acquisition, the Court below has committed gross illegality by not relying upon the said document at the time of pronouncing the Judgment. Apart from that, though all the P.Ws., including the Claimants, have categorically stated in their evidences that the acquired land is surrounded by agricultural land and they do not know the cost of the land and have not filed any document to show the cost as prayed by them and also failed to prove as to potentiality of the land, still the Court below enhanced the compensation @ Rs.1,500/- per decimal. 4. It has also been urged in the grounds of the
Legal Reasoning
Appeal that the decision relied upon by the trial Court is not similar to the present case, as the condition cited in the said decision, relied upon by the trial Court, has not been fulfilled by the Claimants/private Respondents. Further, the Court below wrongly interpreted the evidence of O.P.W.1 and relying on the same, has enhanced the compensation amount when all the P.Ws in L.A.A. No.14 of 2017 Page 4 of 10 their evidences have not proved their case regarding valuation of the acquired land. 5.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Parhi, learned D.S.G.I, reiterating the grounds urged in the Memorandum of Appeal submitted that the impugned Judgment is perverse, because of the grounds detailed in the Memorandum of Appeal and deserves to be set aside. 6. Per contra, Mr. Tripathy, learned Counsel for the private Respondents, drawing attention of this Court to the detailed discussions made by the Court below in the impugned Judgment with regard to Point Nos.2 & 3, at internal page 6 to 11 of the impugned judgment, submitted that the Court below has passed a detailed reasoned order taking into consideration the oral as well as documentary evidence on record and there being no infirmity or illegality in the said order, the Appeal preferred by the Union of India deserves to be dismissed. 7. Mr. Tripathy, learned Counsel for the private Respondents, relying on a recent Judgment of this Court dated 09.01.2024 passed in L.A.A. No.08 of 2019 (Union L.A.A. No.14 of 2017 Page 5 of 10 of India Vs. Alekh Behera and others) submitted that the suit land in the said Appeal was of the same kisam i.e. Sarad Dofasali-II, which was acquired by the Appellant-Union of India, which also belongs to the same mouza as of the mouza in the present Appeal and was also acquired for the same project under the same notification, which was the subject matter of challenge in L.A.A. No.08 of 2019. 8. Mr. Tripathy further submitted that in the said case, the referral Court enhanced the compensation of Sarad Dofasali-II kisam of land to Rs.1,800/- per decimal, which was confirmed by this Court. Whereas, in the present impugned order, the same referral Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,500/- per decimal for the same kisam of land of same mouza, which was acquired vide the same notification for the self same purpose. 9. A query being made, learned D.S.G.I. fairly concedes the said submission made by the learned Counsel for the Respondents to be correct. L.A.A. No.14 of 2017 Page 6 of 10 10. In view of the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be apt to reproduce below the relevant paragraphs of the impugned Judgment for ready reference. to for “The the learned Counsel petitioner elicited from O.P.W.1 in his cross-examination that “residential houses of Bhagaban Bhatta, Ananda Naik, Trilochan Mohanty, Chakradhar Bihari, Panchy Mohanty and others are there nearer the R.D. Road. Residential houses of one Chaitanya Bhoi, Sudarsan Bhol and others are there by the side of the R.D. Road at the opposite direction of Plot no.733. there is a U.P. School and M.E. School in village Khuntubandha. The said village has been electrified. There is a mini market and School at village Chahali. It is a fact that Ext.B has not been prepared basing on the bench mark valuation. Ext. B is silent about homestead land. Trace Map relating to the acquired lands out of plot no.456, 730, 475 and 845 have not been filed in this case.” In the case at hand though one Working sheet and Sales Statistics were marked as Ext.A and B respectively from the side of opposite party, however, the contents of these two documents are not properly proved by any authenticated official. No document is file by the opposite parties showing that basing upon which Exts. A & B are prepared. Also no authenticated document is proved by the opposite parties showing the Bench mark L.A.A. No.14 of 2017 Page 7 of 10 valuation or market value of the acquired land on the date of notification or by the time of acquisition. The petitioner’s claim that the Government has acquired from the middle portion and from the front portion of the acquired plots, for which it injuriously affects that connection no document like any ROR or trace map etc. are proved by the petitioner. Thus, in absence of any cogent material produced by either sides, the only course open for this Court to ascertain market value of the acquired lands basing upon guessestimate. the entire land. But in For ascertaining market value of the property acquired, I referred the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Charanjit Kaur (dead) through L.Rs. Vrs. Union of India and others, 2003 SAR(Civil) SUPPl. 59 Bhule Ram Vrs. Union of India and another, 2014 AIR (Civil) 434, wherein it is held that the market value of the acquired land is to be into consideration location, importance, existing use of the land, geographical situation, prospects and purposes to which the said land may be used, condition/disadvantages and potentiality in foreseeable future. determined taking the The learned Counsel for the petitioner cited a decision reported in Pehlad Ram & Others., 2014 (I) CLR (SC)-182, wherein it is held that unless the State authorities or acquiring authority prove, the cumulative increase of 10 to 15 per cent per year in the market value of the land may be accepted. In the case at hand, Kisam of the acquired lands are Sarad Dofasli-II of an area of Ac. 1.76 decimals and Kisam Taila- II of an area of Ac.0.02 decimals. The L.A.A. No.14 of 2017 Page 8 of 10 acquisition was made on 23.09.2005 and the claimants received total compensation amount of Rs.2,07,157/- for the total acquired area of Ac.1.76 decimals i.e. the L.A.O. has valued the acquired land @ Rs.797=38. The evidence of P.Ws is that the acquired lands are near to a R.D. road. From the evidence of P.Ws., it is clear that there are agricultural lands around the acquired plots. As per the O.P.W. no.1, there is U.P. School, M.E. School and a mini market at the village-Khuntubandha and the same village has been electrified, and the acquired to residential locality. Thus, considering the locational advantage of the acquired lands, I am of the opinion that the claimants are entitled for higher compensation.” nearer lands are (Emphasis supplied) 11. Apart from that, this Court in Alekh Behera (supra), confirmed the enhanced compensation @ Rs.1,800/- per decimal for the same kisam of land of same mouza, which was acquired under the same notification for the same project. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment dated 12th January, 2017 passed in L.A. Misc. Case No.09 of 2007. L.A.A. No.14 of 2017 Page 9 of 10 12. Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to cost. 13. In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, the Appellant-Union of India is directed to implement the Judgment dated 12th January, 2017, passed in L.A. Misc. Case No.09 of 2007, within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this Judgment. …….…………………… S.K. MISHRA, J. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. Dated, the 8th January, 2025/Prasant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 13-Jan-2025 10:22:33 L.A.A. No.14 of 2017 Page 10 of 10