Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK LAA No.99 of 2018 In the matter of an Application under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 *** 1. Dibakar Biswal, Aged about 64 years 2. Dandadhar Biswal, Aged about 59 years 3. Tarinisen Biswal, Aged about 54 years 4. Ratnakar Biswal, Aged about 49 years, All are Sons of Late Bundimanta Biswal, Village/P.O./P.S.: Kamakhyanagar, District: Dhenkanal. … Appellants (Petitioners in Court below) -VERSUS- 1. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Angul-Duburi-Sukinda Road, New B.G. Rail Link Project, At/P.O./District: Dhenkanal. LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 1 of 57 2. Ministry of Railway, Union of India Represented by Chief Engineer (Con.)-II, East Coast Railway, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar, District:Khurda. 3. Angul Sukinda Railway Limited (A company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956) having its Office At Plot No.7622/4706, Press Chhak, Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar – 751 005, District: Khordha. … Respondents (Opposite parties in Court below) 4. Basudev Biswal, Aged about 24 years. 5. Sudarsan Biswal, Aged about 22 years. 6. Gayatri Biswal, Aged about 27 years, Sl Nos.4 to 6 are sons and daughter of Late Sadhu Charan Biswal. 7. Kholana Biswal, Aged about 54 years, Wife of Late Sadhu Charan Biswal. LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 2 of 57 8. Kirtan Biswal, Aged about 62 years. 9. Rudra Narayan Biswal, Aged about 49 years, Sl. No.8 & 9 are Son of Late Brundaban Biswal 10. Alli Sahoo (dead) 10(a) Ranjan Sahoo, Aged about 32 years, Son of Alli Sahoo, Village: Ghantapada, P.O.: Balanda, P.S.: Thana No.4, Nandidhua Colony, Talcher, District: Angul. 11. Kamali Sahoo, Aged about 64 years, Daughter of Late Brundaban Biswal, Wife of Mohan Sahoo, Village/P.O.: Baisinga, P.S.: Kamakhyanagar, District: Dhenkanal. 12. Kumari Biswal, Aged about 51 years, Daughter of Late Brundaban Biswal, Wife of Lalita Behera, Village/P.O.: Siriguda, District: Keonjhar. LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 3 of 57 13. Sarmala Biswal, Aged about 42 years, Daughter of Brundaban Biswal. 14. Dukhi Biswal (dead) 15. Rabi Narayan Nayak, Aged about 74 years. 16. Badani Biswal, Aged about 69 years. 17. Chanchala Sahoo, Aged about 44 years, 18. Puspa Sahoo, Aged about 39 years, Sl. Nos.15 to 18 are sons and daughters of Parbati Nayak. 19. Bipin Biswal (dead) 19(a) Urmila Biswal, Aged about 43 years, Wife of Bipin Biswal. 19(b) Sornamanjari Biswal, Aged about 23 years, Daughter of Bipini Biswal. 19(c) Rinki Biswal, Aged about 20 years, Daughter of Bipini Biswal. LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 4 of 57 20. Bilasini Sahoo, Aged about 54 years. 21. Binodini Sahoo, Aged about 46 years. 22. Bini Sahoo, Aged about 44 years, Sl.Nos.19 to 22 are sons & daughters of Uchhaba Biswal. 23. Sadhabani Biswal, Aged about 84 years, Wife of Uchhaba Biswal. 24. Ditikrushna Biswal, Aged about 64 years. 25. Gatikrushna Biswal (dead) 25(a) Lili Biswal, Aged about 50 years, Wife of Gatikrushna Biswal. 25(b) Samrudhi Biswal, Aged about 50 years, Son of Gatikrushna Biswal. 26. Bedi Biswal (dead) 26(a) Sisir Biswal, Aged about 67 years, Daughter of Bedi Biswal. LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 5 of 57 27. Sumitra Biswal, Aged about 59 years. 28. Suphala Biswal, Aged about 54 years, Sl.Nos.24 to 28 are sons & daughters of Prafulla Kumar Biswal. 29. Tukuna @ Upeep Biswal, Aged about 39 years. 30. Sujan @ Sandeep Biswal, Aged about 44 years. 31. Anjana Biswal, Aged about 59 years. 32. Alaka Biswal, Aged about 44 years, Sl.Nos.29 to 32 are sons & daughters of Pramod Biswal. 33. Prasad Biswal (dead) 33(a) Sashi Rekha Biswal, Aged about 42 years, Daughter of Prasad Biswal. 34. Soudamini Biswal, Aged about 84 years, Daughter of Lambodar Biswal. 35. Dayanidhi Biswal (dead) LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 6 of 57 36. Bhagaban Biswal, Aged about 76 years. 36(a) Bhanumati Biswal, Aged about 40 years, Daughter of Bhagaban Biswal. 36(b) Suresh Biswal, Aged about 36 years, Son of Bhagaban Biswal. 37. Bhagyadhar Biswal (dead). 37(a) Amruti Biswal, Aged about 75 years, Wife of Bhagyadhar Biswal. 38. Nirupama Biswal, Aged about 55 years, Wife of Bhaskar Biswal. 39. Gangadhar Biswal (dead) 39(a) Durga Biswal, Aged about 60 years, Son of Gangadhar Biswal. 39(b) Susama Biswal, Aged about 58 years, Daughter of Gangadhar Biswal. 40. Sankarsan Biswal, Aged about 39 years. LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 7 of 57 41. Mamata Behera, Aged about 59 years. 42. Babi Biswal, Aged about 44 years, Sl.Nos.39 to 42 are sons & daughters of Gourahari Biswal. 43. Ranjan Sahoo, Aged about 49 years. 44. Bhajaman Biswal, Aged about 44 years, Sl.Nos.43 & 44 are sons of Chandrika Sahoo. 45. Kula Sahoo, Aged about 84 years, Daughter of Pancha Biswal. 46. Dambaru Biswal, Aged about 74 years, Sl.Nos.45 & 46 are son of Late Pravakar Biswal. 47. Chita Biswal (dead). 47(a) Anjali Biswal, Aged about 45 years, Wife of Chita Biswal. LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 8 of 57 47(b) Suvendu Biswal, Aged about 25 years, Son of Chita Biswal, All are of Village/P.O./P.S.: Kamakhyanagar, District-Dhenkanal. Respondents …Pro forma (Petitioner Nos.6 to 50 in Court below)
Legal Reasoning
Counsel appeared for the parties: For the Appellants : M/s. Niranjan Panda-1 and Manoj Kumar Panda, Advocates For the Respondent No.1
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Santosh Kumar Brahma, Additional Standing Counsel For the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Mr. Satya Sindhu Kashyap, Senior Panel Counsel For Performa Respondent : None Nos. 4 to 47(b) P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Dates of Hearing Date of Judgment : :: : 11.04.2025 and 15.04.2025 21.04.2025 LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 9 of 57 J UDGMENT Aggrieved by Order dated 07.04.2018 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kamakhyanagar in the district of Dhenkanal, assessing the market value of the land acquired for the purpose of determining quantum of award of compensation at Rs.39,10,000/- as against Rs.25,00,000/- as quantified by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Angul-Duburi-Sukinda Road New BG Rail Link Project, Dhenkanal in L.A. Misc. Case No.112 of 2014 under the provisions of Section 18, the Appellants, persons interested, have preferred this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Facts: 2. A Notification No.31513, dated 25.07.2011 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, “LA Act”) was published in the Odisha Gazette No.1808, dated 05.08.2011 for acquisition of land of the Appellants (Petitioners in Court below) situated at Mouza: Kamakhyanagar, P.S.: Kamakhyanagar, District: Dhenkanal bearing Khata No.240, admeasuring an area of Ac.0.22dec. bearing plot No.1937 of Kissam Sarada-I for the purpose of Angul-Duburi-Sukinda Road, New LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 10 of 57 B.G. Rail Link Project, Dhenkanal. Against such acquisition compensation of an amount of Rs.8,92,386/- was awarded in favour of the Appellants, considering the market value of the land at Rs.25,00,000/- per acre. 2.1. Though the Appellants received the awarded amount under protest as the compensation amount should have been much more considering the suitability, potential use of the land and advantageous position of the land and possible development, objection has been raised before the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The compensation amount could not have been determined based on kissam recorded in the Record-of-Right (RoR). Objecting to such valuation of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the Appellants, being interested persons, claimed the valuation of the acquired land to be at Rs.2,50,000/- per decimal prayer was made to refer the matter for proper assessment of the market price. 2.2. The objection, being referred under Section 18 of the LA Act to the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kamakhyanagar in the district of Dhenkanal, registered
Decision
as LA Misc. Case No.112 of 2014, came to be disposed of by Order dated 07.04.2018, with the following observation and determination: LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 11 of 57 “14. The reference under Section 18 of the Act is answered with observation that the market price, as determined by Special Land Acquisition Officer for award of compensation against the acquisition of the land belonging to the petitioners are not adequate and the market price of that land should have been Rs.39,10,000/- (Thirty nine lakhs and ten thousand) instead of Rs.25,00,000/- per acre as was determined. As such the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Angul-Duburi-Sukinda Road New B.G. Rail Link, Project, Dhenkanal is directed to re-determine the compensation with that enhanced market price of that land along with other benefits for which the petitioners being the persons interested are entitled as per the statute, which includes the solatium. The differential amount shall be paid to the petitioners without inordinate delay. The petitioners are also entitled to get an interest on that differential amount at the rate of 9% per annum from the date on which the possession of the lands was taken, for the first year of possession and then at the rate of 15% till the date of payment of such excess amount as per Section 28 of the Act. The cost of the proceeding is also to be awarded in favour of the petitioners by the Special Land Acquisition Officer as per reasonable scale apropos to Section 27 of the Act. As no reference has been made regarding apportionment of the amount between the petitioners as persons interested, that should be made as per the statute. As such the prayer for specific entitlement of petitioner Nos.1 to 4 is negated. Similarly, the LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 12 of 57 prayers for enhanced compensation on the ground of severance and injurious affection of income are also rejected in absence of merit.” 2.3. Despite direction to re-determine the amount of compensation at the enhanced market value of the acquired land by the Senior Civil Judge, Kamakhyanagar, the Appellants were still aggrieved and preferred this Appeal under Section 54 of the LA Act for further enhancement of market price. Hearing: 3. Notices being issued to the Respondents, Mr. Santosh Kumar Brahma, learned Additional Standing Counsel appeared on behalf of Respondent No.1, Mr. Satya Sindhu Kashyap, learned Senior Panel Counsel, Government of India for High Court of Orissa entered appearance for Respondent Nos.2 & 3 and M/s. Susil Kumar Pattnaik, Saroj Kumar Acharya, Subrat Kumar Pattnaik and Subraj Kumar Pattanaik, learned Advocates entered appearance by filing Vakalatama on behalf of the Pro forma Respondents. 3.1. This matter was taken up on 11.04.2025 and the counsel for the Appellants advanced arguments. However, the matter stood adjourned at the request of LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 13 of 57 the counsel for the respondents for advancing reply arguments. Accordingly, the appeal is heard further on 15.04.2025. 3.2. None represented the Pro forma Respondents at the time of hearing. 3.3. Heard Sri Niranjan Panda-1 and Sri Manoj Kumar Panda, learned Advocates for the Appellants; Sri Santosh Kumar Brahma, learned Additional Standing Counsel for Respondent No.1 and Sri Satya Sindhu Kashyap, learned Senior Panel Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3.4. On conclusion of hearing, the matter stood reserved for preparation and pronouncement of Judgment/Order. Rival contentions and submissions: 4. Suave submission was advanced by Sri Niranjan Panda- 1, learned Advocate by stating candid facts as emanated from the memorandum of appeal and also the facts enumerated in the order of the Reference Court. 4.1. It is urged by learned counsel for the Appellants that without appreciating the facts in proper perspective the learned Senior Civil Judge proceeded erroneously on the LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 14 of 57 basis of kissam of land recorded in the RoR. He submitted that as the land in question was near to the State Highway, the evidence on record should have been appropriately considered by taking into account potential use of the land for homestead and commercial purpose instead of kissam of the land recorded in the RoR. 4.2. It is submitted by Sri Niranjan Panda, learned Advocate that the acquired land situated barely at a distance of 100 meters from the State Highway connecting Dhenkanal and Kamakhyanagar. 4.3. Referring to judgment dated 21.03.2023 passed in Golakha Bihari Das Vrs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, LAA No.57 of 2015 [challenging the Order dated 30.06.2015 passed in LA Misc. Case No.130 of 2014 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kamakhyanagar], it is submitted that this Court enhanced the market price of the land so as to enable computation of revised compensation amount in respect of lands in the vicinity of the land in question. In the said appeal, it has been directed to compute the compensation by taking into account market value at Rs.56,41,905/- per acre. LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 15 of 57 4.4. By furnishing copy of “map” reflecting location of the land referred to in the present case it is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the subject-lands in the aforesaid referred case situate nearby. He, thus, essentially submitted that since the land in question situated adjacent to or nearby the land which was subject matter of aforesaid referred case, the instant Appellants-claimants need to be extended with the similar benefit by determining the amount of compensation. 5. Sri Satya Sindhu Kashyap, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.2 & 3 submitted that on analysis of evidence on record the learned Reference Court having applied rational mind in assessing the value of the land, there is no warrant for this Court to re-appreciate evidence in absence of any new or fresh material. 5.1. Taking into consideration comparability of transactions by virtue of sale deeds with respect to Sarad-I kissam agricultural land which were of the year 2009, i.e., prior to acquisition of land in 2011, the Reference Court was inclined to have reference of the valuation mentioned in the sale deeds as correct depiction of market value. LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 16 of 57 Having considered 30% per year increase in the market value, the learned Senior Civil Judge has made fair determination at Rs.39,10,000/- per acre for the purpose of quantification of compensation. Therefore, there arises no necessity for showing indulgence in this appeal. Analysis and discussions: 6. Considered diligently the contentions of both the parties. By way of written note, Sri Niranjan Panda, learned Advocate submitted that plot No.1937 which is subject- land of the instant appeal has been acquired by virtue of Notification dated 25.07.2011 under Section 4(1) of the LA Act. Though in LA Misc. Case No.124 of 2013 with respect to plot No.1913 was valued at Rs.90,00,000/-, plot No.1915 in L.A. Misc. Case No.127 of 2013 was valued at the same price, in Golakha Bihari Das Vrs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, LAA No.57 of 2015, this Court vide Judgment dated 21.03.2023 confined market price of plot Nos.1980 and 1981 at Rs.56,41,905/-. 6.1. Sri Niranjan Panda, learned Advocate has cited for reference Judgment dated 30.06.2015 delivered by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kamakhyanagar in LA Misc. Case No.130 of 2014, glance at which it LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 17 of 57 appears the subject land acquired in connection with Angul-Duburi-Sukinda Road New B.G. Rail Link Project, Dhenkanal in a reference under Section 18 of the LA Act was with respect to Plot No.1980 (Sarada-III Kissam) and Plot No.1981 (Sarada-I Kissam) under Khata No.104(i) of Mouza: Kamakhyanagar. In the said case, it has been observed as follows: “9. Coming to the present case, this Court vide its Judgment in L.A. Misc. Case Nos.111/2014 (Ext.2) fixed the market price of lands bearing plot nos. 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949 & 1971 belonging to the same village and acquired by the same notification at Rs. 56,41,905 per acre. Similarly in LA. Misc. Case Nos. 34/2014, (Ext 3) the market price of lands bearing plot nos. 1951, 1976 & 1977 belonging to the same the same village and acquired by notification was fixed at Rs.56,41,505/- per acre. The present acquired plots bearing nos. 1980 & 1981 are adjacent to each other in east-west direction. Plot No.1977 is situated on the adjoining west of plot No. 1981 as would be evident from Ext. 1. Plot No. 1976 is on the adjacent west of plot No. 1977. Similarly plot No.1971 is situated just two to three plots away from plot No. 1980 & 1981, whereas plot No. 1947, 1948 & 1949 are also located in a close vicinity of the present acquired plots. The situation, potentiality and advantage of these plots are similar to each other. All the plots are located LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 18 of 57 near to each other in a compact patch and being used for the same agricultural and allied purposes. All these plots are acquired for the same purpose and by the same notification Plot No. 1971 & 1977 are of Sarada-III kissam like the present acquired plot No. 1980. The Court has already enhanced the market price of plot No. 1947, 1948, 1971, 1976 & 1977 to Rs.56,41,905/- per acre vide Ext.2 & Ext.3. It is not the case of the opposite party that the judgment of this Court vide Ext.2 & Ext.3 has been set aside by any higher forum. Therefore in my opinion the plot bearing No. 1980 & 1981 should fetch the same market price as that of plot No.1947, 1948, 1971, 1976 and 1977, i.e., at Rs.56,41,905/- per acre.” 6.2. Said Order of the Reference Court being assailed before this Court in LAA No.57 of 2015 (Golakha Bihari Das Vrs. Special Land Acquisition Officer) the same got dismissed by Judgment dated 21.03.2023, which runs as follows: “1. Though the matter is listed under the heading Fresh Admission, on consent of the learned Counsel for the Parties, matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The present Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 30th June, 2015 passed in L.A. Misc. Case 130 of 2014, vide which the prayer of the present Appellant (Petitioner before the court below), the was enhancing partially allowed by LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 19 of 57 land the suit to compensation amount of Rs.56,41,905/-, instead of Rs.25,00,000/- per acre for Sarad-I kissam land and Rs.14,00,000/- per acre for Sarad-II kissam land, though the claim of the present Appellant was the market price of the acquired land ought to have been Rs.2.5 lakh per acre. 3. Heard Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the Appellant, so also Mr. Rout, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State-Respondent. 4. Mr. Panda, to similar kissam learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that though copy of the judgment passed by the court below in L.A. Misc. Case No.127 of 2014 was exhibited before the court below to prove that the awarded compensation amount in the said case pertaining land was Rs.90,000,00/- per acre, the court below, without considering the said judgment (Ext.4), partially allowed the claim of the Appellant and determined the compensation amount to be @ Rs. 56,41,905/- per acre. He further submits that there were 100 number of land. To substantiate the said claim, though evidence was led before the court below, it failed to take note of the said evidence on record. the acquired trees over 5. Mr. Rout, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State Respondent submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment as the court below, after taking note of the pleadings on record, so also the LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 20 of 57 taking note of Ext.4 documentary and oral evidence, has passed a reasoned Order also in Paragraph-10 of the impugned judgment. He further submits that though the Land Acquisition Officer determined market price of Sarad-I kissam land at Rs.25,00,000/- per acre and Sarad-III kissam land at Rs.14,00,000/-, the court below enhanced/ determined the said amount at Rs.56,41,905/- per acre at par for acquisition of different kissams of land i.e. Sarad-I and Sarad-III. Mr. Rout, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State Respondent further submits that, so far as the compensation for the trees, as claimed by the Appellant, the court below, in Paragraph-10 of the said judgment, has specifically dealt with the said claim stating therein that the Appellant made a bald statement that there were 105 numbers of trees of different variety over the acquired land and there is no specific statement as to number and size of each variety, so also no other supported document regarding the number and size of the trees. On being asked, Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the Appellant fails to demonstrate before this Court as to the evidence led by the Appellant before the court below to substantiate the said claim regarding 105 trees of different variety allegedly existing over the acquired land. Mr. Rout, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State Respondent further draws attention of this LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 21 of 57 Court to Paragraphs-9 and 10 of the impugned judgment, which are reproduced below: in Misc. fixed „9. Coming to the present case, this Court vide in L.A. Misc. Case its Judgment the market Nos.111/2014(Ext.2) price of lands bearing plot Nos.1946, 1947, 1948,1949 and 1971 belonging to the same village and acquired by the same notification, at Rs.56,41,905/- per acre. Similarly Case L.A. Nos.34/2014(Ext.3) the market price of lands bearing plot nos.1951, 1976 & 1977 belonging to the same village and acquired by the same notification was fixed at Rs.56,41,905/- per acre. The present acquired plots bearing nos.1980 & 1981 are adjacent to each other in east-west direction. Plot No.1977 is situated on the adjoining west of plot No.1981 as would be evident from Ext.1. Plot No.1976 is on the adjacent west of plot No.1977. Similarly plot No.1971 is situated just two to three plots away from plot No.1980 & 1981, whereas plot No.1947, 1948 and 1949 are also located in a close vicinity of the present acquired plots. The situation, potentiality and advantage of these plots are similar to each other. All the plots are located near to each other in a compact patch and being used for the same agricultural and allied purposes. All these plots are acquired for the same purpose and by the same notification. Plot No.1971 & 1977 are Sarada-I kissam as LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 22 of 57 the present acquired plot No.1981. like Similarly plot No.1947, 1948 & 1976 are of Sarada-III kissam like the present acquired plot No.1980. This Court has already enhanced the market price of plot No.1947, 1948, 1971, 1976 and 1977 to Rs.56,41,905/- per acre vide Ext.2 and Ext.3. It is not the case of the opp. party that the judgment of this Court vide Ext.2 & Ext. 3 has been set aside by any higher forum. Therefore in my opinion the plot bearing No.1980 & 1981 should fetch the same market price as that of plot No.1947, 1948, 1971, 1976 & 1977, i.e. at Rs.56,41,905/- per acre. to the side land abutting compensation at 10. The petitioner has also relied on the judgment delivered in L.A. Misc. Case No.127/2014 land bearing plot No.1915 was wherein awarded rate of Rs.90,000,00/- per acre. But that land is a the road Kamakhyanagar-Dhenkanal State Highway. Therefore, the potentiality of plot No.1915 cannot be compared with the present acquired plots which are mere agricultural lands. Regarding the trees, the petitioner made a bald statement that there were 105 number of tress of different variety over the acquired lands. But the statement is not specific as to the number and size of each variety. Barring the bald is no other supporting statement, evidence regarding the number and size of the trees. Therefore in my opinion the petitioner is there LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 23 of 57 not entitled for any higher compensation in respect of the trees. Hence ordered.‟ 6. In view of the said findings of the court below, so also taking note of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Parties, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment deserving interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the LAA stands dismissed.” 6.3. It is, thus, contended that the subject-land being plot No.1937 under Khata No.240, being adjacent to or in the vicinity of plot numbers under consideration of aforesaid referred case, the valuation of the land in the present case should at least fetch Rs.56,41,905/- per acre. 6.4. Scrutiny of the map, which is furnished by the learned Counsel for the Appellants during the course of hearing, it is found that the land in question, i.e., Plot No.1937 in the present appeal is situated nearby Plot No.1980 and 1981. The valuation of lands discussed in LAA No.57 of 2015 with respect to Plot No.1980 and 1981 have been determined at Rs.56,41,905/- per acre. 6.5. Scanning through the Reference Court Record, it does not reveal that such map was produced for consideration of evidence. Furthermore, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) had no occasion to have for reference the LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 24 of 57 Judgment dated 21.03.2023 rendered by this Court in LAA No.57 of 2015 (Golakha Bihari Das Vrs. Special Land Acquisition Officer) at the time of disposal of LA Misc. Case No.112 of 2014 on 07.04.2018. 7. This Court now, therefore, would examine whether the earlier reference cases can be the basis for consideration in the later cases? 7.1. To answer this question, it deserves to have regard to what is spelt out in Manoj Kumar Vrs. State of Haryana, (2018) 13 SCC 96. The observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was: “13. The awards and judgment in the cases of others not being inter partes are not binding as precedents. Recently, we have seen the trend of the courts to follow them blindly probably under the misconception of the concept of equality and fair treatment. The courts are being swayed away and this approach in the absence of and similar nature and situation of land is causing more injustice and tantamount to giving equal treatment in the case of unequals. As per situation of a village, nature of land, its value differ from distance to distance, even two to three kilometre distance may also make the material difference in valui. Land abutting highway may fetch higher value but not land situated in interior villages. LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 25 of 57 14. The previous awards/judgments are the only piece of evidence on a par with comparative sale transactions. The similarity of the land covered by previous judgment/award is required to be proved like any other comparative exemplar. In is based on case previous award/judgment exemplar, which is not similar or acceptable, previous award/judgment of court cannot be said to be binding. Such determination has to be outrightly rejected. In case some mistake has been done in awarding compensation, it cannot be followed; on the ground of parity an illegality cannot be perpetuated. Such award/judgment would be wholly irrelevant. the judgment or award passed 15. There is yet another serious infirmity seen in in following acquisition made before 10 to 12 years and price is being determined on that basis by giving either flat increase or cumulative increase as per the choice of individual Judge without going into the factual of determining said method scenario. The compensation is absence of sale transaction before issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and for giving annual increase, evidence should reflect that price of land had appreciated regularly and did not remain static. The recent trend for last several years indicates that price of land is more or less static if it is no has not gone down. At present, there appreciation of value. Thus, in our opinion, it is not a very safe method of determining compensation. is available only when there LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 26 of 57 the award/judgment, 16. To base determination of compensation on a previous evidence considered in the previous judgment/award and its acceptability on judicial parameters has to be necessarily gone into, otherwise, gross injustice may be caused to any of the parties. In case some gross mistake or illegality has been committed in previous award/judgment of not making deduction, etc. and/or sufficient evidence had not been adduced and better evidence is adduced in case at hand, previous award/judgment being not inter partes cannot be followed and if land is not similar in nature in all aspects it has to be outrightly rejected as done in the case of comparative exemplars. Sale deeds are on a par for evidentiary value with such awards of the court as court bases its conclusions on such transaction only, to ultimately determine the value of the property. 17. To rely upon judgment/award in case it does not form part of evidence recorded by the Reference Court, an application under Order XLI, Rule 27 is to be filed to adduce evidence and if it is allowed, opposite party has to be given opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal. into The award/judgment consideration while hearing arguments unless they form part of evidence in the case. A three-Judge Bench of this Court has considered the value of previous award and sale exemplar in City Improvement Trust Board Vrs. H. Narayanaiah, cannot be taken LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 27 of 57 (1976) 4 SCC 9; the judgment of the Court was accepted as relevant evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 by the High Court, though, appeal was pending against it. This Court held that there could be no res judicata. In such cases, as the previous judgment was not inter partes, the opposite party was not given opportunity by the High Court to show that land was different. The decision of the High Court was held to be against the provisions of the Evidence Act, which regulate admissibility of all evidence including judgments. Such judgments are in personam. This Court has observed: „26. It is apparent that Section 43 enacts that judgments other than those falling under Sections 40 to 42 are irrelevant unless they fall under some other provision of the Evidence Act; and, even if they do fall under any such other provision, all that is relevant, under Section 43 of the Evidence Act, is “the existence” of such judgment, order, or decree, provided it „is a fact in issue, or is relevant under some other provision of this Act‟. An obvious instance of such other provision is a judgment falling under Section 13 of the Evidence Act. The illustration to Section 13 of the Evidence Act indicates the kind of facts on which the existence of judgments may be relevant. 27. In LAO Vrs. Lakhamsi Ghelabhai, 1959 SCC OnLine Bom 32 = AIR 1960 Bom 78 Shelat, J. LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 28 of 57 in the held that judgments not inter partes, relating to land acquired are not admissible merely because the land dealt with in the judgment was situated near the land of which the value is to be determined. It was held there that such judgments would fall neither under Section 11 nor under Section 13 of the Evidence Act. Questions relating to value of particular pieces of land depend upon the evidence in the particular case in which those facts are proved. They embody findings or opinions relating to facts in issue and investigated in different cases. The existence of a judgment would not prove the value of some piece of land not dealt in with at all evidence. Even in cause situation considerable differences in value. We do take so not restrictive a view of the provisions of Sections 11 and 13 of the Evidence Act as to exclude such judgments altogether from evidence even when good grounds are made out for their admission. In Khaja Fizuddin Vrs. State of A.P., Civil Appeal No. 176 of 1962, decided on 10.04.1963 (SC), a Bench of three Judges of this Court held such judgments to be relevant if they relate to similarly situated properties and contain fairly determinations of value on dates proximate to the relevant date in a case. slight differences judgment admitted it necessary sometimes, think can, to LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 29 of 57 28. The Karnataka High Court had, however, not complied with provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC which require that an appellate court should be satisfied that the additional evidence is required to enable it either to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. It had recorded no reasons to show that it had considered the requirements of Rule 27 Order 41 of the CPC. We are of opinion that the High Court should have recorded its reasons to show why it found the admission of such evidence to be necessary for some substantial reason. And if it found it necessary to admit it, an opportunity should have been given to the appellant to rebut any inference arising from its existence by leading other evidence. 29. The result is that we allow these appeals and set aside the judgment and order of the Karnataka High Court and direct it to decide the cases afresh on evidence on record, so as to determine the market value of the land acquired on the date of the notification under Section 16 of the Bangalore Act. It will also decide the question, parties opportunities to lead necessary evidence, whether the judgment, sought to be offered as additional evidence, could be admitted.‟ affording after LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 30 of 57 18. This Court has clearly laid down that such judgment/award cannot be received in evidence and considered without giving an opportunity of rebuttal to opposite parties by adducing evidence. At the stage of appeal if award/judgment has to be read in evidence, an application has to be filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code to take additional evidence on record and if allowed, opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal has to be allowed. 19. In Printers House (P) Ltd. Vrs. Saiyadan, (1994) 2 SCC 133, a three-Judge Bench of this Court had considered the value of previous awards and sale exemplar to be similar. It observed: „16. If the comparable sales or previous awards are more than one, whether the average price fetched by all the comparable sales should form the “price basis” for determination of the market value of the acquired land or the price fetched by the nearest or closest of the comparable sales should alone form the “price basis” for determination of the market value of the acquired land, being the real point requiring our consideration here, we shall deal with it. When several sale deeds or previous awards in court as evidence of are produced comparable sales, court has to necessarily examine every sale or award to find out as to what is the land which is the subject of sale or LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 31 of 57 17. award and as to what is the price fetched by its sale or by the award made therefor. If the sale is found to be a genuine one or the award is an accepted one, and the sale or award pertains to land which was sold or acquired at about the time of publication of preliminary notification under the Act in respect of the acquired land, the market value of which has to be determined, the court has to mark the location and the features (advantages and disadvantages) of the land covered by the sale or the award. This process involves the marking by court of the size, shape, tenure, potentiality, etc. of the land. Keeping in view the various factors marked or noticed respecting the land covered by the sale or award, as the case may be, presence or absence of such factors, degree of presence or degree of absence of such factors in the acquired land the market value of which has to be determined, should be seen. When so seen, if it is found that the land covered by the sale or award, as the case may be, is almost identical with land under consideration, the land under the sale or the market value determined for the land in the award could be taken by the court as the price basis” for determining the market value of the acquired land under consideration. If there are more comparable sales or awards of the same the acquired LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 32 of 57 type, no difficulty arises since the price basis” to be got from them would be common. But, difficulty arises when the comparable sales or awards are not of the same kind and when each of them furnish a different “price basis. This difficulty cannot be overcome by averaging the prices fetched by all the comparable sales or awards for getting the “price basis” on which the market value of the acquired land could be determined. It is so, for the obvious reason that such “price basis” may vary largely depending even on comparable sales or awards. Moreover, “price basis” got by averaging comparable sales or awards which are not of the same kind, cannot be correct reflection of the price which the willing seller would have got from the willing buyer, if the acquired land had been sold in the market. For instance, in the case on hand, there are three claimants. The plots of their acquired land, which are five in number, are not similar, in that, their location, size, shape vary greatly. One plot of land of one claimant and another plot of another claimant appear to be of one type. Another plot of land of one of them appears to be of a different type. Yet another plot of the second of them appears to be different. Insofar as third claimant’s plot of land is concerned, it appears to be altogether different from the rest. Therefore, if each of the claimants were to sell her/his respective plots LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 33 of 57 there are of land in the open market, it is impossible to think that they would have got a uniform rate for their lands. The position cannot be different if the comparable sales or awards when relate to different lands. several Therefore, when comparable sales or awards pertaining to different lands, what is required of the court is to choose that sale or award relating to a land which closely or nearly compares with the plot of land the market value of which it has to determine, and to take the price of land of such sale or award as the basis for determining the market land under value consideration.‟ the of 20. In Karan Singh Vrs. Union of India, (1997) 8 SCC 186, this Court held that evidence has to be adduced to show similarity of the land in question to the one covered by previous award/judgment. This Court observed: that „8. The learned counsel for the appellants then the High Court erroneously urged discarded Ext. A-11 which was an award in respect of a land at Village Jhilmil Tahirpur on the ground that it was not a previous judgment of the Court. The land comprised in the award was acquired under Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 27.07.1981. By the said award, the Court awarded compensation @ LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 34 of 57 time than issued the notification Rs.625 per sq yd. It has earlier been seen that in the present case the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act was earlier in point of for acquisition of land comprised in Ext. A-11. There is no quarrel with the proposition that judgments of courts in land acquisition cases or awards given by the Land Acquisition Officers can be relied upon as a good piece of evidence for determining the market value of the land acquired under certain circumstances. One of the circumstances being that such an award or judgment of the court of law must be a previous judgment. In Pal Singh Vrs. State (UT of Chandigarh), it was observed thus: (1992) 4 SCC 400, „5. …But what cannot be overlooked is, that for a judgment relating to value of land to be admitted in evidence either as an instance or as one from which the market value of the acquired land could be inferred or deduced, must have been a previous judgment of court and as an instance, it must have been proved by the person relying upon such judgment by adducing evidence aliunde that due regard being given to all attendant facts and circumstances, it could furnish the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land.‟ LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 35 of 57 Following this decision, we hold that it is only the previous judgment of a court or an award which can be made the basis for assessment of the market value of the acquired land subject to party relying on such judgment to adduce evidence for showing that due regard being given to all attendant facts it could form the basis for fixing the market value of acquired land.‟ 21. In Ranvir Singh Vrs. Union of India, (2005) 12 SCC this Court considered value of previous 59, judgment/award and held that it is only piece of for evidence. There cannot be determining compensation at any rate, observing that: fixed criteria fixed fixed criteria „36. Furthermore, a judgment or award determining the amount of compensation is not conclusive. The same would merely be a piece of evidence. There cannot be any for determining the increase in the value of land at a fixed rate. We, therefore, are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Nariman that as in one case we have fixed the valuation at Rs 7000 per bigha wherein the lands were acquired in the year 1961, applying the rule of escalation the market rate should be determined by calculating the increase in the prices @ 12% p.a. We do not find any justifiable reason to base our decision only on the said criterion.‟ LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 36 of 57 22. A three-Judge Bench in Mysore Urban Development Authority Vrs. Sakamma, (2010) 14 SCC 503 has observed in absence of evidence as to comparable land, award/judgment in another case cannot be accepted. This Court held: „8. There is no evidence to show that the acquired lands at Keragalli and Maragowdanahalli are comparable lands with similar market value. The distance, the extent of development and the facilities available in the two villages make it clear that the award made by the Reference Court with reference to an acquisition in Maragowdanahalli Village cannot be the basis for determining the market value for the lands at Keragalli. 9. We are of the view that the Reference Court and the High Court committed a serious error in relying upon the judgment (Ext. P-2) relating to Maragowdanahalli, to determine the market value of lands at Keragalli. If Ext. P-2 is excluded, we find that there is no evidence to determine the market value, as the only other document relied upon by the landowners was a sale transaction of 2007 which being nearly one decade after the acquisition, is not of any assistance. We also find that no evidence has been let in by the appellant in regard to the market value though the award of the Land Acquisition Officer refers to sale transactions during 1997-1998 showing a value of LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 37 of 57 Rs.2,50,000 per acre in Keragalli. But those sale deeds were not produced. 10. We are also told that the reference cases in regard to several other lands under the same the acquisition are still pending before Reference Court and some cases are pending in the High Court. In the absence of any acceptable evidence, it is not possible for us to determine the market value. It would appear that sale transactions relating to 1996-1998 for lands near to acquired lands are available but not produced. Some of them are now produced by the appellant. We cannot obviously rely upon them as they are produced for the first time in this Court and the landowners did not have an opportunity to have their say in regard to such letting evidence. Interests of justice, therefore, requires that the matter should be remanded.‟ transactions by 23. Basic principle before following award/judgment or comparative sales is that land should be comparable in nature and quality as laid down in State of M.P. Vrs. Kashiram, (2010) 14 SCC 506 and Hirabai Vrs. LAO, (2010) 10 SCC 492 and in close proximity of time to preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act. In the instant case, we hold that the High Court could not have followed the judgment in a blind manner as done without due consideration of various aspects. LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 38 of 57 *** 25. This Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vrs. LAO, (1988) 3 SCC 751 has laid down broad principles to be the case of determination of followed compensation thus: in „4. The following factors must be etched on the mental screen: (1) A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the court cannot take into account the material the Land Acquisition Officer in his award unless the same material is produced and proved before the court. relied upon by (2) So also the award of the Land Acquisition Officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial court open or exposed to challenge before the court hearing the reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the material utilised by him for making his valuation cannot be utilised by the court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the court to sit in appeal against the award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition Officer, as if it were an appellate court. LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 39 of 57 (3) The court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it. (4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the court. Of course the materials placed and proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose. (5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of notifications under Sections 6 and 9 are irrelevant). (6) The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification under Section 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price. (7) In doing so by the instances method, the court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance, which provides the index of market value. LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 40 of 57 (8) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation of acquisition of land.) (9) Even post-notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate, (2) genuine, and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects. (10) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations: (i) proximity from time angle, (ii) proximity from situation angle. (11) Having identified the instances which provide the index of market value, the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market value of the land under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-(cid:224)-vis land in under acquisition by placing juxtaposition. two the (12) A balance sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do. LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 41 of 57 (13) The market value of the land under acquisition has thereafter to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors. (14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has to be undertaken in a common sense manner, as a prudent man of the world of business would do. We may illustrate some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Plus factor Smallnss of size Proximity to a road Minus factor 1. Largeness of size 2. Situation in the interior at small a distance from the road Narrow strip of land with very frontage compared to depth Lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up Remoteness developed locality special Some disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchaser from Frontage on a road 3 Nearness area to developed 4 Regular shape Level vis-(cid:224)-vis land under acquisition 5 6 Special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage (15) The evaluation of these factors of course depends on the facts of each case. There cannot be any hard- and-fast or rigid rule. Common sense is the best and most reliable guide. For instance, take the factor LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 42 of 57 regarding the size. A building plot of land say 500 to 1000 sq yds cannot be compared with a large tract or block of land of say 10,000 sq yds or more. Firstly while a smaller plot is within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a lay out, carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up) and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approximately between 20% to 50% to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting will to some extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or urban area, whether building activity is picking up, and whether waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur would be longer or shorter and the locked up, will be attendant hazards. (16) Every case must be dealt with on its own fact pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent purchaser of land in which position the Judge must place himself. (17) These are general guidelines to be applied with understanding informed with common sense.‟ ***” 7.2. A reference to CESC Ltd. Vrs. Sandhya Rani Barik, (2008) 10 SCR 137, as has been referred to in the referral judgment impugned herein, may be significant. In the LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 43 of 57 said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India laid down the approach of the Court with regard to assessment of valuation as follows: “16. The armchair assessment of land value has to proceed with common sense and circumspection. One should attempt to find out the just and reasonable compensation without attempting any mathematical precision in that regard. For the purpose of assessing compensation, the efforts should be to find out the price fixed for the similar land in the vicinity. 17. The difference in the land acquired and the land sold might take on various aspects. One plot of land might be larger, another small, one plot of land might have a large frontage and another might have none. There might be difference in land development and location. There might be special features which have to be taken note of and reasonably considered in the matter of assessing compensation. 18. Where a very large plot of land has been acquired and the comparison is sought to be made with a comparatively small piece of land which has been sold or otherwise dealt with, then in that event, a percentage of the price is to be knocked off because of land. Accordingly, the High Court made the deductions. The High Court also dealt with the question of land locking and held that it was a special feature which had to be taken note of.” the acquired largeness itself of the LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 44 of 57 7.3. This Court takes note of following discussion in the case of Ravinder Kumar Goel Vrs. State of Haryana, (2023) 3 SCR 912: „9. *** From the records, it is pointed out that as contended on behalf of the parties, the sale exemplars were brought on record to aid the Court to determine the market value, the consideration of which was required to be made to arrive at an appropriate market value. for reference 10. While adverting to this aspect of the matter what is necessary to be noted is that the Reference Court before appreciating the evidence, has kept in view the parameters laid down by this Court while the purpose of considering a determining the market value of the acquired lands to arrive at the just compensation. Since the sale exemplars had been placed by the rival parties before the Reference Court, in order to take the same into consideration, the Reference Court has in fact taken note of the decision of this Court in State of Gujarat Vrs. Kakhot SinghJi VajesinghJi Vaghela, (1968) 3 SCR 692. This Court had enunciated the principle that the price agreed between a willing seller and a willing purchaser would be the price which is generally prevailing in the market in respect of the lands having similar advantages which can be to determine the market value of acquired lands if such sale instances are brought on record. the basis LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 45 of 57 11. Further, the Reference Court had also kept in view the decision of this Court in Atma Singh (Dead) through Lrs. and Ors. Vrs. State of Haryana and Anr., (2008) 2 SCC 568 wherein it is held that the sale instances of small pieces of land cannot be ignored while determining the compensation for a land acquired. The rule of large extent of deduction on development charges would not be uniformly applicable was also taken into consideration. It is in that light, the Reference Court has placed reliance on the document at Ex.PX dated 07.12.2004 relied upon by the land losers. Under the said document, an extent of 5 Marlas was sold in Sultanpur i.e. the area which is the subject matter of these appeals, for the sale consideration of Rs.1,05,000/- to Rs.33,60,000/- per acre. On reckoning the said value of land, the Reference Court deducted 35 per cent of the same towards development charges and thereafter added the escalation for 35 days being the difference of the period between the date of the said sale deed and the date of the preliminary notification. It is on the said basis that the market value of Rs. 22,00,754/- per acre was arrived at by the Reference Court. 12. From the judgment of the Reference Court it is noted that the sale exemplars which were relied upon by the respondent-HSIIDC at Ex.R5/R12, Ex.R6, Ex.R9, Ex.R13 to Ex.R16 were discarded since they depict the market value of the land which is lower than the amount awarded by the Collector. To that extent, the reason assigned by amount would which LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 46 of 57 the Reference Court is not justified. The documents would have to be taken into consideration, to decide as to whether the lands are comparable and, on the determination, if the conclusion is that they are comparable but the market value depicted is lesser than what is awarded by the SLAO and if there is no other document to indicate a higher market value, it would be open for the Reference Court to confirm the award of the LAO being more beneficial to the land losers. 13. Therefore, since we have already indicated that the High Court was not justified in merely relying on the circular fixing the floor rates when other evidence was available on the record pursuant to the remand made, it is necessary for us to take note as to whether the Reference Court had committed an error in not relying on the sale exemplars produced by the respondents without analysing the comparability. The position of law is well settled that when large extent of lands are acquired and if the sale exemplar, also for the large extent is available on record it would be safer to rely on the same if they are comparable transactions. However, as already noted above, this Court in Atma Singh (supra) has also held that the sale instances of smaller extents cannot be ignored. Further, this Court has reiterated in many cases that the sale exemplars for smaller extent can be relied to appropriate deduction being upon subject provided towards development charges. LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 47 of 57 14. the though instant case, the acquisition In Notification dated 11.01.2005 was issued in respect of the large extent of lands measuring 798 Kanals and 2 Marlas, the extent of lands which were owned by majority of land losers is a small extent. In fact, the details indicated in the judgment dated 10.01.2020 passed by the Reference Court has referred to about 69 appellants who were before it. Therefore, the extent to which each of the appellants is claiming compensation is a smaller extent. In that background, if the documents relied on by the respondents at Ex.R5 to R16 are noted, the largest extent sold is under Ex.R16 being 32 Kanals and 16 Marlas, while the least being under Ex.R8 measuring 3 Kanals and 8 Marlas. We have referred to this aspect of the matter to indicate that while approving the procedure for placing reliance on the sale deeds of earlier sale transactions as exemplars, this Court starting from the case of Kakhot SinghJi Vajesinghji Vaghela (supra) and several other cases has emphasized that the basis for the same is that the value under such exemplars would represent the sale consideration agreed upon between a willing seller and a willing purchaser and therefore would represent the true market value. 15. If the above-referred concept is kept in perspective, one cannot loose sight of the fact that when large extent of agricultural land is sold under a document and if the land is to be used for agricultural purpose, LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 48 of 57 the In cases, where the price agreed thereto would be based on the nature of the land and the purpose for which it is put large extent of to use. agricultural land belonging to a single owner is acquired, it would no doubt be safe to rely on such sale exemplars of large extents, more particularly, in circumstances where the land which is classified as agricultural is also used for agricultural purposes. In such circumstances, to arrive at the market value depending on the nature of the cultivation, the capitalisation method by applying the multiplier to the crop pattern and price derived can be adopted and the market value be determined or determine the market value based on such sale deeds which are comparable exemplars. land 16. However, the difficulty arises when a person holds a smaller extent of is classified as land which agricultural land but would have lost its character due to non-cultivation and urbanization when such land is more eminent and fit to be used for non- agricultural purposes. It is in that circumstance, such land though classified as agricultural will have to be treated as a land having non-agricultural potential more particularly for urban use. In that light, in appropriate cases depending on the location and the extent of land held by each of the land losers who is a part of the same acquisition, is required to be kept in view, while applying the yardstick to reckon the appropriate exemplar and arrive at the ultimate conclusion. Therefore, there can be no strait jacket formula that when the LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 49 of 57 large extent of sale deeds for the sale of large extent are available and lands are acquired that alone should be reckoned as the exemplar. What its comparability, which would depend on case to case basis and that is for the Court to analyze based on the evidence available on record.” is material is 7.4. In absence of any material placed by the Appellants herein with respect to comparability of subject-lands with the lands under discussion before this Court as found place in the Judgment dated 21.03.2023 passed in Golakha Bihari Das Vrs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, LAA No.57 of 2015 [challenging the Order dated 30.06.2015 passed in LA Misc. Case No.130 of 2014 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kamakhyanagar], mere reliance on copy of a “map” as additional evidence without support of a petition under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, cannot allude to be an evidence in favour of the Appellants by holding that the lands in both the cases have passed the tests laid down in catena of decisions of Courts. Given the circumstances, it is imperfect to accept the argument presented by the learned counsel for the Appellants that the lands in question should be valued at the market rate of Rs.56,41,905/- per acre, as LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 50 of 57 they are located near the lands mentioned in land acquisition appeal [LAA No. 57 of 2015], where the market price was established at Rs.56,41,905/- per acre. Without discharging burden of proof to justify such an argument advanced on behalf of the Appellants, it is not prudent to jump to the conclusion that since market price of the subject-lands in LAA No. 57 of 2015 was established at Rs.56,41,905/- per acre, the lands in its proximity should also be valued at par. Therefore, it requires further investigation into the nature of land by applying the tests and parameters emanating from various judgments to assess the market price of the lands for arriving at apt conclusion. Conclusion: 8. On perusal of the Order dated 07.04.2018 passed in LA Misc. Case No.112 of 2014 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kamakhyanagar, it is perceived that determination of market value was made at Rs.39,10,100/- taking note of the fact that the Appellants have not filed sale deeds pertaining to agricultural lands contemporaneous to the acquisition and the argument of Additional Government Pleader that no document has been filed from the side of the LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 51 of 57 petitioners that the acquired land situates in close vicinity of the properties thus alienated”. 8.1. The Appellants sought to place reliance on a “map”, which did not form part of the Record of the Reference Court, showing that the subject-plot is situated nearby/ adjacent to the lands under discussion in LAA No.57 of 2015 before this Court with respect to Notification dated 25.07.2011 issued under Section 4(1) of the LA Act. This Court cannot be oblivious of ruling that “to rely upon judgment/award in case it does not form part of evidence recorded by the Reference Court, an application under Order XLI, Rule 27 is to be filed to adduce evidence and if it is allowed, opposite party has to be given opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal”, as found in Manoj Kumar Vrs. State of Haryana, (2018) 13 SCC 96. 8.2. The view expressed by Supreme Court of India in Basayya I. Mathad Vrs. Rudrayya S. Mathad, (2008) 1 SCR 1155 is noteworthy: “It is clear that parties to the tis are not entitled to produce additional evidence as of course or routine but must satisfy the conditions stated in sub-clauses (a) & (aa). Admittedly, such recourse has not been resorted to neither by the party concerned nor adhered those principles by the High Court. Paragraph 3 of his order LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 52 of 57 shows that the learned Judge verified the document produced on his direction without complying the mandate as provided under Rule 27 of Order XLI. Hence, we are of the view that the finding of the learned Judge based on a document produced at the time of argument de hors to Rule 27 referred above cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In such circumstances, his ultimate conclusion treating the suit property as a family property partible among the members of the family is also liable to be set aside. In fact, sub-clause (2) of Rule 27 mandates that wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, it shall record the reason for its admission. It is needless to mention that the High Court neither followed those conditions for production of additional evidence nor recorded the reason for basing reliance on the same.” 8.3. A Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in K. Venkataramiah Vrs. A. Seetharama Reddy, (1964) 2 SCR 35, held: “It is very much to be desired that the courts of appeal should not overlook the provisions of cl. (2) of the Rule and should record their reasons for admitting additional evidence. We are not prepared, however, to accept the contention of the appellant that the omission to record the reason vitiates the admission of the evidence. Clearly, the object of the provision is to keep a clear record of what weighed with the appellate court in to be produced— allowing whether this was done on the ground: the additional evidence LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 53 of 57 (i) (ii) (iii) that the court appealed from had refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or it allowed it because it required it to enable it to pronounce judgment in the appeal or it allowed this for any other substantial cause. Where a further appeal lies from the decision of the appellate court such recording of the reasons is necessary and useful also to the court of further appeal for deciding whether the discretion under the rule has been judicially exercised by the court below. The omission to record the reason must therefore be treated as a serious defect. Even so, we are unable to persuade ourselves that this provision is mandatory. For, it does not seem reasonable to think that the legislature intended that even though in the circumstances of a particular case it could be definitely ascertained from the record why the appellate court allowed additional evidence and it is clear that the power was properly exercised within the limitation imposed by the first clause of the Rule all that should be set at naught merely because the provision in the second clause was not complied with. It may be mentioned that as early as 1885 when considering a similar provision in the corresponding Section of the Code of 1882, viz., Section 586, the High Court of Calcutta held that this provision for recording reasons is merely directory and not imperative vide Gopal Singh Vrs. Jhakri Rai, (1866) 11 M.I.A. 28. We are aware of no case in which the correctness of this view has been LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 54 of 57 doubted. It is worth noticing that when the 1908 Code was framed and Order XLI Rule 27 took the place of the old Section 568, the legislature was content to leave the provision as it was and did not think it necessary to say anything to make the requirement of recording reasons imperative. It is true that the word “shall” is used in Rule 27(2); but that by itself does not make it mandatory. We are therefore of opinion that the omission of the High Court to record reasons for allowing additional evidence does not vitiate such admission.” 8.4. Be that be, this Court passed Judgment in LAA No.57 of 2015 on 21.03.2023 which is pronounced later to the judgment of the Reference Court assailed in the present appeal. The learned Senior Civil Judge had no occasion for having regard to said Judgment at the relevant point of time. The “map” sought to be adduced before this Court as evidence was not before the Reference Court. Since the “map” showing the lands, as relied on by the counsel for the Appellants during course of argument, are stated to be situated adjacent to or nearby the lands that are considered in said referred land acquisition appeal by this Court, the learned Senior Civil Judge- Reference Court is required to re-determine the market price of the land in question taking into consideration the discussions made hereinabove. The Reference Court is at liberty to reconsider the evidence on record and LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 55 of 57 that may be sought to be adduced by the parties and re- determine the market value for the purpose of quantifying the compensation amount. 9. Ergo, the Order dated 07.04.2018 passed in LA Misc. Case No.112 of 2014 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kamakhyanagar is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the said Court for re-determining the market price of land in question, i.e., Plot No.1937, Khata No.240, mouza: Kamakhyanagar in the district of Dhenkanal comprising an area of Ac.0.22dec. acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Angul-Duburi- Sukinda Road New B.G. Rail Link Project under Section 4(1) of the LA Act vide Notification No.31513, dated 25.07.2011 [published in Odisha Gazette No.1808, dated 05.08.2011] in the light of the aforesaid referred cases keeping in view principles enunciated and propounded in the pronouncements discussed above. Needless to clarify that this Court does not disturb the market price as has already been determined in the Order dated 07.04.2018 of the Senior Civil Judge, but this order of remit is confined to examination/redetermination of market price for the purpose of considering enhancement of amount of compensation as claimed in the present appeal. LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 56 of 57 10. In consequence of aforesaid discussions and observations, the Land Acquisition Appeal stand disposed of and all pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. In the circumstances, the parties are to bear their respective costs. (MURAHARI SRI RAMAN) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 21st April, 2025//Laxmikant/Suchitra Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR SETHY Designation: Personal Assistant (Secretary-in-Charge) Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-Apr-2025 14:49:13 LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 57 of 57