Misc. Case No. 70 of 2013 · The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK LAA No.109 of 2018 Union of India ....... Appellant -Versus- Prafulla Kumar Nayak & ors. ....... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. A.K. Mohanty, Central Govt. Counsel For Respondents : Mr. A.K. Swain, Advocate ................... CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA ________________________________________________________________ Date of Hearing and Judgment: 06.03.2024 ________________________________________________________________ S.K. MISHRA, J. 1. Though the matter has been listed under the heading “For Admission”, since the private Respondents have already appeared and the scanned/digitized copy of the LCR is available, on consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. This appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment dated 19.05.2018 passed in L.A. Misc. Case No.70 of 2013. As against the total compensation of Rs.6,74,413/- for acquiring Ac.0.67 decimals of land awarded by the Land Page 1 of 11 Acquisition Officer, shortly “LAO”, the Court below enhanced the compensation amount to Rs.15,000/- per decimal, as has been detailed in the impugned judgment. 3.
Facts
The brief background facts, which led to filing of this appeal by Union of India, are that, in pursuance of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Shortly, the Act, 1894, the LAO, Nayagarh, acquired the Plot Nos.792, 783/1093 & 805, an area of Ac. 0.31 decimals, Ac. 0.23 decimals & Ac. 0.13 decimals respectively, totaling to Ac. 0.67 decimals of land, in Khata No.281, of Kisam Sarada Dofasal of the present Respondents situated at village Laxmiprasad in the district of Nayagarh. 4. The said acquisition was made for the purpose of Khurda-Bolangir Rail Link Project. The present Respondents were not satisfied with the compensation being at a lower side. It is the case of the Respondents before the Court below that the acquired land is situated at 1/4 k.m. distance from the main road, the market value of the acquired land on the date of publication of notice should have been at least Rs.30,000/- per decimal. 5. Being not satisfied with the same, the present Respondents (Petitioners before the Court below) filed objection Page 2 of 11 before the LAO. The said objection was sent to the Court below by the LAO, which was registered as L.A. Misc. Case No.70 of 2013. 6. The matter being referred to the Court below, it framed two issues. The first issue was what was the fair market value of the acquired land at the time of publication of notice under Section 4 (1) of the Act and the second issue was, to what relief the Claimants/Petitioners are entitled for. 7. After recording evidence from both the sides, while answering the said issues, the Court below held that the Petitioners/present Respondents are entitled for higher compensation @ Rs.15,000/- per decimal towards valuation of the acquired land. Accordingly, the present Appellant was directed to pay the compensation to the Claimant/Respondents as per law. 8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment passed in L.A. Misc. Case No.70 of 2013, the Railway (Opposite Party No.2 before the Court below) has preferred the present appeal basically on the grounds that the Court below ought to have examined the validity of the award determined by the LAO within the parameter and mandatory guidelines stipulated under Sections 23 and 24 of the Act, 1894. The Court below neither Page 3 of 11 assigned any sufficient reasons nor the circumstances, under which it preferred to differ with the assessment of the market value determined by the LAO. The Court below failed and denied to consider the documents and materials on record, which were marked as Exhibits - A to D on the ground that the said documents are not certified copies. The Court below fixed the market value of the acquired land exorbitantly @ Rs.15,000/- per decimal on the basis of Registered Sale Deed (RSD) marked as Exhibits 1 & 2 and oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 & 2 so also applying the guess work. Hence, a prayer has been made to set aside the impugned judgment. 9. To substantiate the grounds taken in the
Legal Reasoning
evidence on record and relying on the judgments of this Court in Bhule Ram vs. Union of India & another reported in 2014 AIR (Civil) 434, Land Acquisition Officer vs. Trilochan Sahu reported in 2003 (suppl.) OLR. 978 (NOC), Nityananda Namtoar and Ors. vs. L.A. Officer-Cum-Collector, Keonjhar and anr. reported in 2014 (Suppl-II) OLR-144 and Special Land Acquisition Officer Davangere vs. P. Veerabhadarappa reported in AIR 1984 SC 774, came to the following conclusions: and para-30 submission of (Supp-II) OLR-144 at “Thus, in the circumstances, taking into consideration the available oral evidence and documents learned counsels for parties, it is clearly found that the market value of the acquired land was higher than the value given to the claimants. The L.A.O has valued the acquired land at Rs 6,74,413/-. As observed by Honb’le Court in that 2014 “compensation should neither be a bonanza for the claimants nor it should give a feeling in the mind of the claimants that an act of pittance is shown to them". In my considered view, the guess work and in the back drop of sale deeds, the extent of area sold under the sale deeds (Exts.1 and 2) in comparison the extent of in question and oral evidence of lands petitioner regarding location of property and the transactions made in near about area of acquired land, would be the proper approach for the purpose of ascertaining market value of the land in question. In my considered opinion, for the discussions as made above, I am of opinion that the claimants are entitled for Page 8 of 11 higher market value. Considering the above, I am of the opinion that the claimants are entitled for higher compensation@ Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousands only )per decimal towards the valuation of the acquired land Hence it is ordered:” (Emphasis supplied) 18. Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 mandates the factors to be considered while determining the compensation, which is extracted below: to be “ 23. Matters in determining compensation- (1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration- considered first, the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the [notification under section 4, sub-section (1)] secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collectors taking possession thereof; thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collectors taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other land; fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collectors taking possession of the land, by reason of the injuriously affecting his other acquisition property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings; fifthly , if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, (if any) the reasonable expenses incidental to such change; and sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between Page 9 of 11 the time of the publication of the declaration under section 6 and the time of the Collectors taking possession of the land.” (Emphasis supplied) 19. Admittedly, the first criteria to be taken into consideration while determining the amount of compensation is the market value of the land as on the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894. 20. As is ascertained from RSD marked as Exhibit 2, the market value of the land was @ Rs.30,000/- per decimal. Even though the present Respondents proved that the acquired land is situated under Laxmiprasad Mauza, Nayagarh, since they failed to prove that the land acquired by the State is belonging to same Chaka, as of the land sold under the Exhibits 1 & 2, instead of enhancing the compensation amount @ Rs.30,000/- per decimals, as claimed by the present Respondents, (Petitioners before the Court below), vide the impugned judgment, the Court below held that the Petitioners are entitled to get compensation @ Rs.15,000/- per decimals towards valuation of the acquired land. The unchallenged testimony of P.W.1, as extracted above, well proves that the acquired plots were kept for construction of residential building, in which the Respondents intended to reside in future and they have no other plots for construction of a house Page 10 of 11 for their family members and the acquired land is adjacent to N.A.C. area. 21. In view of the above, there being no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. 22. As the appeal is dismissed, the Appellant/Union of India is directed to act in terms of the judgment passed by the Court below in L.A. Misc. Case No.70 of 2013 within a period of eight weeks hence. ….…...…………….. S.K. Mishra, J. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. Dated, 6th March, 2024/ Banita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation: SR. STENOGRAPHER Reason: AUTHENTICATION Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 12-Mar-2024 18:25:35 Page 11 of 11
Arguments
memorandum of appeal, Mr. Mohanty, learned Central Government Counsel, drawing attention of this Court to Paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment, submits that the LAO assessed the compensation in total at Rs.6,74,413/- for area of Ac. 0.67 decimals. However, the Court below enhanced the same to Rs.15,000/- per decimal. Mr. Mohanty further submits, one of the RSD marked as Exhibit 1 was prior to the date of notification made under Section 4(1) of the Act, which was published on 04.04.2012, still the Court below has taken into Page 4 of 11 consideration the said document for enhancement of the compensation amount. 10. Mr. Mohanty submits, though the Amin was examined as O.P.W.1 and documents were exhibited through him and marked as Exhibits - A to D, being objected by the present Respondents, the said documents were marked as Exhibits with objection and the Court below did not take into consideration the said documents, including the bench mark valuation from the 2009-11, which was marked as Exhibit - C, so also work sheet, which was marked as Exhibit - D with objection. 11. He further submits, the Court below did not take into consideration the said documents solely on the ground that neither any officer was examined to prove the said documents nor any explanation was offered from the side of the Opposite Party in the said regard. The said documents were also not taken into consideration by the Court below on the ground that the same are photo copies certified to be attested and the Appellant failed to produce the certified copies of the said documents. 12. Mr. Mohanty further submits, the enhanced compensation amount being almost double than what was awarded by the LAO, deserves interference. Page 5 of 11 13. In response to the said submission made by the learned CGC for the Appellant, Mr. Swain, learned Counsel for the private Respondents, drawing attention of this Court to the various observations/findings of the Court below in the impugned judgment submits, admittedly the RSD, which was marked as Exhibit 2, was dated 21.10.2011, which was prior to the Section 4 (1) notification dated 04.04.2012. 14. He further submits, the RSD, which was marked as Exhibit 1, though is dated 29.08.2012, but the same is prior to the notice given to the present Respondents in terms of the Section 9 of the Act, 1894, which was also marked as Exhibit A from the side of the Appellant (Opposite Party before the Court below). 15. Mr. Swain, drawing attention of this Court to the Affidavit filed by the P.Ws. 1 & 2, submits, apart from the said documentary evidence, which were exhibited from the side of the present Respondents (Petitioners before the Court below) without any objection, the oral testimonies of P.Ws. 1 & 2 filed in form of Affidavit evidence remained unchallenged with regard to the potentiality of the land acquired by the State. Accordingly, Mr. Swain, learned Counsel for the private Respondents prays for Page 6 of 11 dismissal of the appeal on the ground that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. 16. In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be apt to reproduce below Paragraph Nos.6 and 8 (wrongly typed as para-7) of the Affidavit evidence of P.W.1 so also Paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 of the Affidavit evidence of P.W.2. Extract from deposition of P.W.1 “6. That we had kept the above plots for the purpose of construction of residential building in which we had intended to reside in future. We have no other plots for construction of a house for our family members. 8. That the acquired Land is just adjacent to N.A.C. area and about 1/4 kms from main road. The market value of the acquired land in question on the date of publication of notice was at least Rs. 30,000.00 per decimal and we were not willing to sell the land even at that rate.” Extract from deposition of P.W.2 in Mouza “ 4. That I sold Ac.0.024 decimals of land bearing Plot No.946, Kisam – Sarad Dui in Sana Tota Chaka under Khata No.179 : Laxmiprasad, late Jayanti Swain wife of Krushna Chandra Lenka of Nayagarh, New Rajabati for a received consideration of Rs.75,000/-. Rs.75,000/- to execution of sale deed and executed Regd. sale deed No.11371204963 on 29.08.2012. After execution of sale deed Jayanti Lenka possessed the land taking delivery of possession. from Jayanti Lenka prior I 5. That Tangiritala Bharat gadia and Khali Chaka where acquired land situate are adjacent to Sana Tota chakas.” (Emphasis supplied) Page 7 of 11 17. Admittedly, the said depositions of P.Ws.1 & 2 remained unchallenged during their cross-examination. On perusal of the LCR so also the judgment impugned, it is ascertained that the Court below, taking into the admitted