The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK LAA No.54 of 2011 Union of India ....... Appellant -Versus- Lambodar Sahu & Ors. ....... Respondents Advocate for the parties For Appellant : Mr. P.K. Das, CGC For Respondent Nos.1 & 2
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. S. Devi, ASC ---------------------------- CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing and Judgment: 06.12.2024 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S.K. Mishra, J. This Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant- Union of India challenging the enhancement of compensation vide judgment dated 16.08.2011 passed by the Referral Court in LAR No.7 of 2010. L.A.A. No. 54 of 2011 Page 1 of 7 2. The factual matrix of the case is that an area of Ac.0.98 dec. under plot nos. 254 and 256 appertaining to Khata No.41 of Mouza- Balajipita of Bahal and Berna Kisam of Land belonging to the private Respondents were compulsorily acquired by the Government for the purpose of construction of Lanjigarh Road- Junagarh Rail Link Project vide Notification No. 19714 dated 03.05.1994 and declaration no. 19158 dated 15.05.1995 in terms of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in short ‘the L.A. Act, 1894’. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, shortly, LAO, awarded an amount of Rs.20,268/- towards compensation for the acquired land, which the private Respondents (Petitioners before the court below) received under protest. Thereafter, in a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, 1894, which was registered as L.A.R No. 07 of 2010, the referral Court, vide judgment dated 16.08.2011, allowed the claim of the Respondents on contest for enhancement of compensation @ Rs. 45,000/- per acre along with other statutory benefits in terms of the provisions under the L.A Act., 1894. Hence, this Appeal. 3. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Though several grounds have been urged in the memorandum of appeal, learned Counsel for the Appellant- L.A.A. No. 54 of 2011 Page 2 of 7 Union of India, drawing attention of this Court to para 10 of the impugned judgment submitted, the Court below enhanced the compensation based on Ext.1, which does not disclose the kisam of land though compensation of Rs.60,000/- was awarded for acquisition of Ac.1.11 decimal of land. Similarly, though the said judgment in M.J.C. No.186 of 1997 was exhibited through P.W.1 as Ext.1, during his cross-examination, the Claimant/Petitioner was unable to say the kisam of the land so also amount of compensation awarded as per Ext.1. Hence, the impugned judgment being passed relying on Ext.1, is perverse and deserves to be set aside. 5. In response to such submission made by the learned CGC, Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the private Respondents, drawing attention of this Court to the observations made by the Court below in paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment, submitted that the Court below consciously took note of the said fact that Ext.1 does not disclose the kisam of land, for which the compensation was awarded. It also observed that kisam of land of the present Respondents (Petitioners before the Court below) is “Bahal”, which is of superior quality in comparison to other kisam of lands. Considering the facts and circumstances of the said case L.A.A. No. 54 of 2011 Page 3 of 7 and evidence adduced by both the parties, the Court below has rightly enhanced the compensation of the acquired land to Rs.45,000/- per acre, though it should have been Rs.54,000/- per acre in terms of Ext.1. There being no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment, the Appeal preferred by the Appellant-Union of India deserves to be dismissed and direction be given to comply the impugned judgment within a stipulated time frame. 6. Learned Counsel for the Respondents further submitted that though the Court below was of the view that the Respondents should be paid at par with the Petitioner of Ext.1, still it reduced the compensation to Rs.45,000/- per acre, instead of Rs. 54,000/- per acre. Learned Counsel for the private Respondents, drawing attention of this Court to the paragraph Nos.8 & 9 of the examination-in-chief of P.W. No.1, further submitted that lands of one Paramananda Sahu of kisam Berna, Mala & Atta were acquired, which was the subject matter in MJC No.186 of 1997 and the Court below awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- as market value of the land for acquiring Ac.1.11 decimal of land of Paramananda Sahu and it was specifically stated by P.W.1 that valuation of land per acre as per Ext.1 comes to Rs.54,054/- and the said evidence of P.W.1 L.A.A. No. 54 of 2011 Page 4 of 7 remained un-touched during his cross-examination. Despite such evidence on record, the Court below enhanced the compensation to Rs.45,000/- per acre only, though it should have been more. 7. In view of such submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be apt to reproduce below the relevant portion from paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment:- of he land so also cross-examination filed an application “10. xxxxxxx He further deposed that one Parmananda Sahu of his village whose land has been acquired under same notification and for declaration had enhancement of the compensation for his acquired land which was referred to this court and registered as M.J.C. No,186/97 and in the said case this court vide judgment dated 14.11.2000 has directed the O.P. to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- along with other statutory benefits as compensation. But during the has course categorically admitted that he cannot say the kissam of the amount of compensation awarded as per Ext. 1. He further admitted that he has not filed any document to show that the cost of the acquired land or the similar land was of more than the amount compensated to him and that he has not filed any document showing the quantity of different crops get from his acquired land so also the rate of the crops during that time. He further admitted that he has not filed any map showing the location of their acquired land and land relating to Ext. 1, Similarly, though P.W.2 one Baidyanath Sahu the cousin brother of the petitioner also deposed supporting to the claim of the petitioners in his evidence in chief but the same is not helpful to decide the fate of the L.A.A. No. 54 of 2011 Page 5 of 7 present case. However, it is found that the petitioners have relied much on the ratio of the judgment passed by this court in M.J.C. No, 186/1997 (Ext. 1). There is no such material available or produced by the petitioners to establish that the kisam of their land is same that of the land of Parmananda Sahu relating to Ext. 1 and both the lands are of similar advantage. It is found from the judgment passed by this court in M.J.C. No. 186 of 1997 (Ext.1) that Act, 1.11 decs of land was acquired by the O.P. No.1 for the same project and on the reference of the protest petition of the petitioners to this court the compensation amount has been enhanced to Rs. 60,000/- for his total acquired land of Ac 1.11 dec. Since Ext.1 does not disclose the kisams of said compensation was awarded and as the kisam of the land of the present petitioners are Bahal which is superior quality to other and lands. circumstances of this case and evidence adduced by both the parties it is felt by the court that the petitioners are entitled to get the compensation for their acquired land more than the amount given by O.P. No.1 and at par with the petitioner of Ext.1 xxxxxxxx”. Considering for which facts land the the (Emphasis Supplied) 8. In view of the discussions made above so also evidence on record and the finding of the Court below, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and the Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. As is ascertained from the record, this Court, while issuing notice in the matter of limitation to the private Respondents, vide order dated 04.10.2012 passed in Misc. Case L.A.A. No. 54 of 2011 Page 6 of 7 No.99 of 2012, stayed further proceeding in Execution Case No.7 of 2011 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna until further order, subject to the Appellant/Petitioner depositing the entire decretal amount along with up to date interest in the Executing Court within a period of six weeks from the said date. 10. Pursuant to the said order, if the State Appellant has already deposited the decretal amount with up to date interest, on production of certified copy of this order, the Executing Court shall do well to release the said amount forthwith in favour of the beneficiaries. 11. With the above observation and direction, the Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to cost. …….….…………………… S.K. MISHRA, J. High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 6th December, 2024 /Banita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation: SR. STENOGRAPHER Reason: AUTHENTICATION Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 25-Dec-2024 15:27:22 L.A.A. No. 54 of 2011 Page 7 of 7