Misc. Case No. 76 of 2006 · The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK LAA No.98 of 2018 Union of India ....... Appellant -Versus- Prafulla Kumar Nayak & others ....... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. A.K. Mohanty, Central Govt. Counsel For Respondent Nos.1 to 5: Mr. A.K. Swain, Advocate For Respondent Nos.6 & 7 : Mr. B. Panigrahi, Addl. Standing Counsel ................... CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA ________________________________________________________________ Date of Hearing and Judgment: 02.07.2024 ________________________________________________________________ S.K. MISHRA, J. 1. This Appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment dated 27.04.2018 passed in L.A. Misc. Case No.76 of 2006. As against the total compensation of Rs.2,09,576/- for acquiring Ac.0.71 decimals of land awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, shortly “LAO”, the Court below enhanced the Page 1 of 12 compensation amount to Rs.9,500/- per decimal, as has been detailed in the impugned judgment. 2.
Facts
The brief background facts, which led to filing of this appeal by Union of India, are that, in pursuance of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, shortly, the Act, 1894, the LAO, Nayagarh, acquired Ac 0.06 decimals of land in plot Nos.805, Ac.0.21 decimals of land in Plot No.61/1079, Ac.0.32 decimals of land in Plot No.45/1100, Ac. 0.12 decimals of land in Plot No.62/1101, totaling to Ac. 0.71 decimals of land of Kisam Sarada Dofasali-II of the Respondents situated at village Laxmiprasad in the district of Nayagarh. 3. The said acquisition was made for the purpose of Khurda Road-Bolangir Rail Link Project. The Respondents were not satisfied with the said compensation, being at a lower side. It is the case of the private Respondents before the Court below that since the acquired land is situated just adjacent to the NAC area of Nayagarh and in front of Mission Hospital and Holly Family Convent School and the State High Way is running in the front of the disputed land, the market value of the acquired land on the date of publication of notice should have been at least Rs.50,000/- per decimal. L.A.A. No.98 of 2018 Page 2 of 12 4. Being not satisfied with the same, the private Respondents (Petitioners before the Court below) filed objection before the LAO. The said objection was sent to the Court below by the LAO, which was registered as L.A. Misc. Case No.76 of 2006. 5. The matter being referred to the Court below, it framed two issues. The first issue was what was the fair market value of the acquired land at the time of publication of notice under Section 4 (1) of the Act and the second issue was, to what relief the Claimants/Petitioners are entitled for. 6. After recording evidence from both the sides, while answering the said issues, the Court below held that the Petitioners/private Respondents are entitled for higher compensation @ Rs.9,500/- per decimal towards valuation of the acquired land. Accordingly, the present Appellant was directed to pay the compensation to the Claimants/Respondents as per law. 7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment passed in L.A. Misc. Case No.76 of 2006, the Railway (Opposite Party No.2 before the Court below) has preferred the present Appeal basically on the grounds that the Court below ought to have examined the validity of the award determined by the LAO within the parameter and mandatory guidelines stipulated under L.A.A. No.98 of 2018 Page 3 of 12 Sections 23 and 24 of the Act, 1894. The Court below neither assigned any sufficient reasons nor the circumstances, under which it preferred to differ with the assessment of the market value determined by the LAO. The Court below failed and denied to consider the documents and materials on record, which were marked as Exhibits-A to D on the ground that the said documents are not certified copies. The Court below fixed the market value of the acquired land exorbitantly @ Rs.9,500/- per decimal on the basis of Registered Sale Deed (RSD) marked as Exhibits 1 & 2 and oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 & 2 so also applying the guess work. Hence, a prayer has been made to set aside the impugned judgment. 8. To substantiate the grounds taken in the memorandum
Legal Reasoning
relying on the judgments of this Court in Bhule Ram vs. Union of India & another reported in 2014 AIAR (Civil) 434 SC, Land Acquisition Officer vs. Trilochan Sahu reported in 2003 (suppl.) OLR. 978 (NOC), Nityananda Namtoar and Ors. vs. L.A. Officer-Cum-Collector, Keonjhar and anr. reported in 2014 (Suppl-II) OLR-144 and Special Land Acquisition Officer Davangere vs. P. Veerabhadarappa reported in AIR 1984 SC 774, came to the following conclusions: in taking submission of the circumstances, “Thus, into consideration the available oral evidence and documents and learned counsels for parties, it is clearly found that the market value of the acquired land was higher than the value given to the claimants. The L.A.O has valued the acquired land at Rs 2,09,576/-. As observed by Honb’le Court in 2014 (Supp-II) OLR-144 at para-30 that “compensation should neither be a bonanza for the claimants nor it should give a feeling in the mind of the claimants that an act of pittance is shown to them". In my considered view, the guess work and in the back drop of sale deeds and oral evidence of petitioner regarding location of property would be the proper approach for the purpose of ascertaining the market value of the land in question. In my considered opinion, for the discussions as made above, I am of opinion that the claimants are entitled for higher market value. Considering the above, I am of the opinion that the claimant is entitled for higher compensation@ (Rupees nine thousands and five Rs.9,500/- L.A.A. No.98 of 2018 Page 9 of 12 hundred)per decimal towards the valuation of the acquired land. Hence it is ordered:” (Emphasis supplied) 18. Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 mandates the following factors to be considered while determining the compensation, which is extracted below: “23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation- (1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired into under consideration- the Court shall this Act, take first, the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the [notification under section 4, sub-section (1)] secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collectors taking possession thereof; thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collectors taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other land; fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collectors taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings; fifthly , if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, (if any) incidental to such change; and reasonable expenses the sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under section 6 and the time of the Collectors taking possession of the land.” (Emphasis supplied) L.A.A. No.98 of 2018 Page 10 of 12 19. Admittedly, the first criteria to be taken into consideration, while determining the amount of compensation, is the market value of the land as on the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894. 20. As is ascertained from RSD marked as Exhibit-2, the market value of the land was @ Rs.30,000/- per decimal. Even though the private Respondents proved that the acquired land is situated under Laxmiprasad Mauza, Nayagarh, since they failed to prove that the land acquired by the State is belonging to same Chaka, as of the land sold under the Exhibits-1 & 2, instead of enhancing the compensation amount @ Rs.30,000/- per decimals, as claimed by the private Respondents, vide the impugned judgment, the Court below held that they are entitled to get compensation @ Rs.9,500/- per decimal towards valuation of the acquired land. The unchallenged testimony of P.W.1, as extracted above, well proves that the acquired plots were kept for construction of residential building, in which the Respondents intended to reside in future and they have no other plots for construction of a house for their family members and the acquired land is adjacent to N.A.C. area. 21. In view of the above, there being no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that the L.A.A. No.98 of 2018 Page 11 of 12 Appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed. 22. As the Appeal stands dismissed, the Appellant/Union of India is directed to act in terms of the judgment passed by the Court below in L.A. Misc. Case No.76 of 2006 within a period of eight weeks hence. ….…...…………….. S.K. Mishra, J. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. Dated, 2nd July, 2024/ Prasant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 09-Jul-2024 17:52:14 L.A.A. No.98 of 2018 Page 12 of 12
Arguments
of Appeal, Mr. Mohanty, learned Central Government Counsel, drawing attention of this Court to Paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment, submitted that the LAO assessed the compensation in total at Rs.2,09,576/- for an area of Ac.0.71 decimals. However, the Court below enhanced the same to Rs.9,500/- per decimal. Mr. Mohanty further submitted, one of the RSD, marked as Exhibit 2, was after the date of notification made under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 which was published on 24.03.2001. Still L.A.A. No.98 of 2018 Page 4 of 12 the Court below has taken into consideration the said document for enhancement of the compensation amount. 9. Mr. Mohanty submitted that though the Amin was examined as O.P.W.1 and documents were exhibited through him and marked as Exhibits-A to D, being objected by the private Respondents, the said documents were marked as Exhibits with objection and the Court below did not take into consideration the said documents, including the bench mark valuation, which was marked as Exhibit-A, so also the work sheet, which was marked as Exhibit-B with objection. 10. Mr. Mohanty further submitted that the Court below did not take into consideration the said documents solely on the ground that neither any officer was examined to prove the said documents nor any explanation was offered from the side of the Opposite Party in the said regard. The said documents were also not taken into consideration by the Court below on the ground that the same are attested photo copies and the Appellant failed to produce the certified copies of the said documents. 11. Mr. Mohanty further submitted that the enhanced compensation amount being almost double than what was awarded by the LAO, the impugned judgment deserves interference. L.A.A. No.98 of 2018 Page 5 of 12 12. Mr. A.K. Swain, learned Counsel for the Private Respondent, relying on the Judgment of this Court dated 06.03.2024 passed in L.A.A. No.109 of 2018, submitted that this Court in an identical issue has upheld the judgment passed by the referral Court. The only difference between the present Appeal and the L.A.A. No.109 of 2018 is that the suit land which was acquired by the Appellant-Union of India in the present Appeal was by virtue of a notification dated 24.03.2001 meant for acquisition of land for the purpose of Khurda Road-Bolangir Rail Link Project and the suit land which was the subject matter of challenge in L.A.A. No.109 of 2018 was acquired subsequently vide notification dated 04.04.2012, was of same mouza and for the same purpose. So far as subsequent notification made by the authority concerned, the referral Court awarded the enhanced compensation of Rs.15,000/- per decimal, which was upheld by this Court vide judgment delivered in L.A.A. No.109 of 2018, whereas in the present Appeal, the referral Court, relying on Ext.1, has enhanced the compensation to Rs.9,500/- per decimal. 13. Mr. Swain further submitted that though Ext.A i.e. the Sales Statistics was not taken into consideration by the referral Court while pronouncing the impugned judgment, but the L.A.A. No.98 of 2018 Page 6 of 12 transaction vide Sl. No.5 of the Sales Statistics marked as Ext.A with objection well indicates that the R.S.D., which was marked as Ext.1, has been reflected in the said Sales Statistics and vide the said R.S.D. the consideration amount of the suit land for Sarada Do Fasali-II was Rs.10,000/- per decimal. 14. Mr. Swain, drawing attention of this Court to the various observations/findings of the Court below in the impugned judgment submitted that admittedly, the RSD, which was marked as Ext.1, is dated 11.09.1998, which was prior to the Section 4 (1) notification dated 24.03.2001. 15. Mr. Swain, further drawing attention of this Court to the Affidavit Evidence filed by the P.Ws.1 & 2, submitted that apart from the documentary evidence, which were exhibited from the side of the present Respondents (Petitioners before the Court below) without any objection, the oral testimonies of P.Ws.1 & 2 filed in form of Affidavit Evidence remained unchallenged with regard to the potentiality of the land acquired by the State. Mr. Swain further submitted that there being no infirmity in the impugned Judgment, the present Appeal deserves to be dismissed and direction be given to the Appellant-Union of India to make payment to the Respondent within a stipulated period. L.A.A. No.98 of 2018 Page 7 of 12 16. In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be apt to reproduce below Paragraph Nos.4, 6 & 7 of the Affidavit evidence of P.W.1 so also Paragraph Nos.6 & 7 of the Affidavit evidence of P.W.2. Extract from deposition of P.W.1 “4. That we have kept the above plots for the purpose of construction of residential building in which we have intended to reside in future. We have no other plots for construction of a house for our family members. That just these acquired Land 6. adjacent to N.A.C. area of Nayagarh and situate in form of Mission Hospital and Holy Family Convent School. The State Highway is also running in front of the said acquired land. is 7. That the market value of the acquired land in question on the date of publication of Notice for acquisition of land was at least Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) per decimals and we the Petitioners were not willing to sell the land even at that rate.” Extract from deposition of P.W.2 That just these acquired Land 6. adjacent to N.A.C. area of Nayagarh and situate in form of Mission Hospital and Holy Family Convent School. The State Highway is also running in front of the said acquired land. is 7. That the market value of the acquired land in question on the date of publication of Notice for acquisition of land was at least Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) per decimal and we the Petitioners were not willing to sell the land even at that rate.” (Emphasis supplied) L.A.A. No.98 of 2018 Page 8 of 12 17. Admittedly, the said statements of P.Ws.1 & 2 remained unchallenged during their cross-examination. On perusal of the LCR so also the judgment impugned, it is ascertained that the Court below, taking into the admitted evidence on record and