The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK L.A.A. No.98 of 2008 (In the matter of an application under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894) State of Odisha & others ....... Appellants -Versus- Kanchan Dalai & others ....... Respondent Advocate for the parties For Appellants : Mrs. U. Padhi, Addl. Standing Counsel For Respondents : Mr. S.C. Mohanty, Advocate ---------------------------- CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Judgment: 03.01.2025 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.K. Mishra, J. Though this Appeal has been listed under the heading “Fresh Admission”, since the Respondents have already appeared, on being noticed in the matter of limitation, on consent of learned Counsel for both the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. This Appeal has been preferred challenging the Judgment dated 07.07.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Athagarh in L.A. Case No.14 of 2002, vide which the Court below held that the Petitioners (present Respondents) are entitled to get compensation @ Rs.10,000/- per gunth in respect of acquired Ac.0.04 decimals of land with all other statutory benefits in terms of provision under Sections 23(1)(a), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, shortly, „L.A. Act‟. 3. The factual matrix of the present Appeal is that, an area of Ac.0.04 decimals appertaining to Plot No.43 under Khata No.296 of Sarad-III Kisam of agricultural land belonging to the Respondents of village- Nizigarh under Cuttack district was acquired by the State for the purpose of construction of Bhogara Minor Irrigation Project in pursuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act dated 31.05.1993. After taking into consideration all the contemporaneous materials, L.A.A. No.98 of 2008 Page 2 of 12 compensation was determined @ Rs.21,000/- per acre and in total Rs.1347.92p was received by the Respondents towards compensation under protest. Thereafter, in a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, which was registered as L.A. Case No.14 of 2002, the referral Court, vide order dated 07.07.2007, allowed the claim of the Respondents (Petitioners before the Court below) by enhancing the compensation @ Rs.10,000/- per gunth (@ Rs.2,50,000/- per acre) along with other statutory benefits. Hence, this Appeal. 4. This Appeal has been preferred on the grounds that, the Court below ought to have examined the validity of the award determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, shortly, „L.A.O.‟ within the parameter and mandatory guidelines stipulated under Section 23 and 24 of the Act, 1894 so also the Court below failed to consider the contemporaneous materials pertaining to the acquired land and its vicinity under Ext.A as well as the trustworthy evidence of O.P.W.l in their proper prospective. Further, as per the settled legal position, the L.A.A. No.98 of 2008 Page 3 of 12
Legal Reasoning
Claimants stand in the position of the Plaintiffs, on whom the burden of proof lies by adducing cogent and acceptable evidence that the acquired lands are capable of fetching higher compensation than what has been granted by the L.A.O. Further, it is the duty of the Court to evaluate the evidence, even if no rebuttal evidence is adduced by the L.A.O. to assess the market value of the acquired land. Since no cogent documentary evidence has been adduced by the Claimants with regard to their claim for higher compensation, the ultimate conclusions of the Court below in fixing the market value of the acquired land exorbitantly on the basis of an un- contemporaneous R.S.D. vide Ext.1 and further by resorting to unreasonable surmises, are against the weight of evidence on record and legally unsustainable. 5. Mrs. U. Padhi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Appellants, reiterating the grounds urged in the Memorandum of Appeal, submitted that though the determination was made by the L.A.O. within L.A.A. No.98 of 2008 Page 4 of 12 the parameters and mandatory guidelines stipulated under Sections 23 and 24 of the Act, 1894, the referral Court has clearly acted in excess of its jurisdiction ab initio vitiating the award and thereby rendering it a nullity. The Court below has neither assigned sufficient reasons nor the circumstances, under which it preferred to differ with the assessment of the market value determined by the L.A.O. That apart, the Court below has utterly failed in considering the contemporaneous materials pertaining to the acquired land and its vicinity under Ext.A as well as the trustworthy evidence of O.P.W.1. 6. Mrs. Padhi further submitted that though the Court below, relying on Ext.1, enhanced the compensation in favour of the present Respondents (Claimants before the Court below), it was in absence of clinching piece of evidence on records to make a comparison with regard to the nature, situation, advantages and potentiality of the acquired land with the lands covered under Ext.1, which could not be L.A.A. No.98 of 2008 Page 5 of 12 established by the Claimants by adducing cogent documentary evidence to substantiate such claim. Hence, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondents, drawing attention of this Court to paragraph-7 of the impugned Judgment, submitted that the kisam of land so far as the R.S.D., which was marked as Ext.1, is Sarada and the said R.S.D. is of the year 1989 whereas, the case land has been acquired by the State in the year 1994 in terms of Gazette Notification No.708 dated 31.05.1993. 8. Learned Counsel for the Respondents relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pehlad Ram and others Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and others, reported in (2014) 14 SCC 778, submitted that law is well settled that the formula of enhancing compensation has to be applied by giving 10 to 15% cumulative increase per year in the market value of the land for the interregnum period. However, the Court below, simply relying on Ext.1, enhanced the L.A.A. No.98 of 2008 Page 6 of 12 compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per gunth, though it should have been much more than what has been awarded. That apart, the enhanced compensation amount being very minimal, the State ought not to have preferred this Appeal. There was sufficient material before the Court below to enhance the compensation and there being no infirmity or perversity in the impugned award, the present Appeal deserves to be dismissed and a direction be given to the State Authority to disburse the differential amount with other statutory dues, as has been directed by the Court below, within a stipulated period. 9. In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, on perusal of the impugned Judgment, it is found that the Court below has passed a reasoned order to justify the enhancement of the compensation @ Rs.10,000/- per gunth relying on Ext.1, which is of the year 1989, though the acquisition of the land was made vide notification dated 31.05.1993. L.A.A. No.98 of 2008 Page 7 of 12 Paragraph-7 of the impugned award, being relevant, is extracted below: “7. On the other hand nothing in-substantial has been brought out from the mouth of all these witnesses for the petitioners by the learned A.G.P. to discard their evidence to determine the market value of the case land. That apart no rebuttal evidence has been adduced on behalf of the O.Ps to discard the case of the petitioners that the land of the case land vicinity was sold at the rate of 10,000/- per gunth. The witness examined on behalf of the O.Ps i.e. O.P.W.1 during his cross-examination stated that he has not enquired into the market value of the land of the case land vicinity in the locality just prior to the acquisition of the land. The grounds of Valuation has been prepared only on the basis of sale datta. The potential value of the land has not been taken in to consideration. He further added that notices were not issued to the person concerned to remain present at the time of spot enquiry meant for the land intended to be acquired. He further says that he has not participated in the acquisition matter of project work. It is simply submitted by the learned A.G.P. during course of argument that the kisam of the case land is not similar with the case land of the sale deed (Ext.1). The petitioners have filed the certified copy of the sale deed bearing No.255 dated 13.7.89 in order to corroborate their available evidence on record. The certified copy of the said sale deed has also been marked as Ext.1, on perusal of the contents of the said sale deed it is seen that the land has been sold at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per gunth in the year 1989 to the Telecom Department, Bhubaneswar. The land under Ext.1 situates in Nizigarh under Athagarh P.S. and the case land also is admitted L.A.A. No.98 of 2008 Page 8 of 12 the evidence of situated in village Nizigarh. At the same time the petitioners remained un-shakened by the O.Ps to hold that the case land lies with the ward No.1 of Athagarh N.A.C. and the same also lies near to the land sold under Ext.1. In the circumstances, the court does not find any negative evidence on behalf of the O.Ps to discard the case of the petitioners that the valuation of the case land would not be less than Rs.10,000/- per gunth with similar valuation of Ext.1 in the year 1989. The case land has been acquired in the year 1994 as per the Gazette Notification vide No.708 dated 31.5.93. So the court does not find any mis- carriage of justice if the valuation of the case land would be determined on the basis of the valuation as given by the Govt. under Ext.1 to the vendor Sitakanta Samanta. No evidence has also been made on behalf of the petitioners that within a short period the valuation of the land in the vicinity was increased. But the case land being in similar status with the land under Ext.1 as Srada kisam, the court feels it just and proper to determine the valuation of the case land at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per gunth and accordingly, it is found the petitioners are certainly entitled for more compensation that the awarded money.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. That apart, the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Respondents is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the State regarding the year of acquisition so also enhancement of compensation for the interregnum period. Admittedly, the Court below, while considering the application of the present Respondents L.A.A. No.98 of 2008 Page 9 of 12 for enhancement, has failed to take note of the said settled position of law regarding the cumulative increase of compensation per year in the market value of the land as was held in Pehlad Ram (supra). Paragraph Nos.9 to 17 of the said Judgment, being relevant, are extracted below: “9. In Hindustan Oil Mills Ltd. v. Collector (LA) [(1990) 1 SCC 59] this Court held that generally the value of the land doubles in five years and opined that an increase of 20% per year is a normal formula. 10. In State of Haryana v. Gurbax Singh [(2008) 11 SCC 65] this Court approved the principle adopted by the High Court while assessing the market value under Section 23 of the Act, or giving marginal enhancement of compensation @ 12% per annum for two years since acquisition, comparing the value with the land notified under Section 4 of the Act, two years prior to the notification under Section 4 involved in the case. 11. In ONGC Jivanbhai Patel [(2008) 14 SCC 745] this Court has applied the same formula giving cumulative rate of escalation @ 7.5% per annum, though found that cumulative to 15% was permissible. 12. Similarly, in Sardar Jogendra Singh v. State of U.P. [(2008) 17 SCC 133 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 822] the same principle had been applied by this Court giving 10% increment per year. Thus, total increase in ten years to the tune of 100% was found justified. 13. In Lal Chand v. Union of India [(2009) 15 SCC 769 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 766] a similar formula had been applied, however, as the previous sale or acquisition was not available for Ltd. v. Rameshbhai increase of 10 L.A.A. No.98 of 2008 Page 10 of 12 the Court in Dollar judgment the last 20 years, this Court did not approve the formula giving annual increment for 20 years continuously. 14. In Satish v. State of U.P. [(2009) 14 SCC 758 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 507] the same principle was followed adopting the formula of 10% increase per year. 15. This Co. [Dollar Co. v. Collector of Madras, (1975) 2 SCC 730] has categorically laid down that in case the land of the claimant has been acquired in close vicinity of the purchase, the consideration paid by such claimant to the vendor is the best evidence of the market value of the land. The court should not award more unless it is possible to reach a different conclusion. Even the appellate court should not interfere in such a fact situation is based on wrong unless application of principle or because some important point affecting valuation has been overlooked or misapplied. The consideration paid by the owner only a few months ago presents bona fide evidence of value subject to certain exceptions such as relationship of the parties, market conditions and terms of sale and the date of sale. 16. We are also of the view that in case a purchaser has not shown the exact amount of consideration paid by him in the sale deed to save the stamp duty under the Registration Act, 1908, such dishonest vendee is not required to be protected by the court. 17. It is also evident from the law referred to hereinabove that a cumulative increase of 10 to 15% per year in the market value of the land may be accepted unless the State agencies or acquiring authority prove otherwise.” 11. Law is well settled that a cumulative increase of 10 to 15% per year in the market value of the land may L.A.A. No.98 of 2008 Page 11 of 12 be accepted, unless the State Agencies or the acquiring authority proves otherwise. However, as the Respondents have not challenged the impugned award for further enhancement of compensation on the said ground, this Court is of the view that the Court below has passed a reasoned order with regard to determining the compensation to be @ Rs.10,000/- per gunth in favour of the Respondents and the Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to cost. 13. In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, the State- Appellant is directed to implement the Judgment dated 07.07.2007 passed in L.A. No.14 of 2002 within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this Judgment. …….…………………… S.K. MISHRA, J. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. Dated, the 3rd January, 2025/Prasant L.A.A. No.98 of 2008 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 08-Jan-2025 16:58:50 Page 12 of 12