The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK L.A.A. No.32 of 2017 (In the matter of an application under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894) Land Acquisition Officer, Kalahandi ....... Appellant -Versus- Jaya Kumar Singh Deo ....... Respondent Advocate for the parties For Appellant For Respondent : Mr. B. Panigrahi, Addl. Standing Counsel : Mr. M.K. Mohapatro, Advocate ---------------------------- CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 29.08.2024 Date of Judgment: 08.11.2024 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.K. Mishra, J. This Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment dated 19.01.2016 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna in L.A.R. No.150 of 2014 vide which the Court below allowed the claim of the Claimant and ordered for higher compensation. 2. The brief facts, which lead to filing of the Appeal, are that an area of Ac.1.00 decimal of land in Plot No.323/423, under Khata No.103/78, Mouza-Patiguda of Atta Kisam belonging to the Claimant was acquired for the purpose of construction of Talijore M.I.P. in pursuance of Notification No.48916 dated 18.12.2009 made under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, shortly, ‘the Act, 1894’. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) assessed the compensation in total at Rs.49,518/- for an area of Ac.1.00 decimal, which the Claimant/Respondent received under protest. Thereafter, in a reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, which was registered as L.A.R. No.150 of 2014, the referral Court, vide order dated 19.01.2016 allowed the claim of the Claimant/Respondent and ordered for higher compensation @ Rs.4,00,000/- per acre for acquisition of the land and ordered for payment of interest, solatium and other benefits as per the statute. Hence, this Appeal. 3.
Legal Reasoning
The impugned Judgment has been challenged basically on the ground that the Court below did not examine the validity of the award determined by the LAO within the parameters and mandatory guidelines stipulated under L.A.A. No.32 of 2017 Page 2 of 10 Sections 23 & 24 of the Act, 1894 and acted in excess of its jurisdiction, for which the impugned award is vitiated. Neither sufficient reason was assigned nor the circumstance under which it preferred to differ with the assessment of the market value of the land determined by the LAO, has been detailed in the impugned judgment. The Court below utterly failed in considering the contemporaneous materials under Ext.1 as well as the trustworthy evidence of O.P.W. No.1 in their proper perspective. There was no clinching piece of evidence on record enabling the Court below to compare the nature, situational advantages and potentiality of the acquired agricultural land so also factum of similarity of the said land pertaining to its locational advantage, which could not be established by the Claimant by adducing any cogent documentary evidence. The Court below granted higher compensation @ Rs.4,00,000/- per acre by placing reliance on unsupported statements of interested witnesses. 4. Reiterating the grounds urged in the Memorandum of Appeal, learned Counsel for the State submitted that the impugned Judgment passed in L.A.R. No.150 of 2014 is perverse and deserves to be set aside. L.A.A. No.32 of 2017 Page 3 of 10 5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondent, drawing attention of this Court to the findings of the Court below in paragraph-7 of the judgment, submitted that not only the present Respondent/Claimant led sufficient oral as well as documentary evidence to substantiate his demand for further enhancement of compensation but also the concerned Amin, who was examined as the sole O.P.W.1 on behalf of the State, during course of his cross-examination admitted that village M. Rampur is adjoining to village Patiguda having one boundary and that there are School, College, Court, Hospital and Govt. Offices in village M. Rampur and the National Highway from Gopalpur to Raipur is passing through village M. Rampur and Patiguda. The O.P.W.1 further admitted that village Kusurula is situated at a considerable distance from the village M. Rampur. 6. Learned Counsel for the private Respondent further submitted that village Patiguda is adjoining to village M. Rampur which is a semi urban and fast growing locality having College, School, High School, Courts, Hospital, Block Office, Banks and Market Complexes within its boundary and situated adjacent to National Highway No.217 from Raipur to L.A.A. No.32 of 2017 Page 4 of 10 Gopalpur. Due to demand of house site at M. Rampur, the Respondent had developed his acquired land into house site long before the said acquisition. The Respondent, who examined himself as P.W.1, in addition to deposing so, has further deposed that Mala kisam of land, which is inferior to Berna kisam of land, was sold @ Rs.5,00,000/- per acre in his village as per the sale statistics obtained by the Opposite Party. Apart from that, Respondent also led evidence before the Court below that he was cultivating vegetables in the acquired Berna kisam of land and was earning around Rs.50,000/- per acre after meeting all agricultural expenses by selling vegetables. 7. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that though specific evidence was led by the Respondent that the Atta kisam of land acquired by the State was converted to Gharabari kisam of land much before the date of notification for acquisition, such oral evidence of the P.Ws. remained unchallenged during their cross-examination. Hence, taking into consideration the oral as well as documentary evidence on record so also the Ext.1 i.e. Judgment passed by the same Court in L.A.R. No.182 of 2014, vide which the market value L.A.A. No.32 of 2017 Page 5 of 10 of Atta, Mala, Berna and Bahal kisam of land of nearby remote interior village of Kushurla acquired vide L.A. Case No.01 of 2009 was determined to be @ Rs.2,13,000/- per acre, the Court below was justified to re-determine the compensation for acquisition of the land of the Respondent @ Rs.4,00,000/- for Atta kisam of land per acre and there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and the present Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. In view of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties, on perusal of the L.C.R. so also the impugned Judgment, it is found that the Court below, apart from the admitted oral evidence on record, took into consideration Ext.1 produced and exhibited by the present Respondent, while re-determining the compensation amount, as has been detailed above. 9. That apart, based on the evidence on record, the Court below, vide para-8 of the impugned Judgment held as follows: “8. Xxx Admittedly the sale deed vide Ext.1 produced by the petitioner was a registered document and authenticity thereof has not been questioned by the OP. That apart the same has been executed on 06.10.2009 which was about two months prior to the notification U/s.4(1) of the Act made in this case i.e on 18.12.2009. L.A.A. No.32 of 2017 Page 6 of 10 truth that population The said sale deed was for sale of gharbari kissam of land @ Rs.23,000/- per decimal in adjoining village M. Rampur of the acquired village. In the present case, the acquired land is of Atta kissam of land. While assessing the proper value of a land basing on the sale deeds, the factors for consideration are the position, the existence and the possible use of the lands. There may be occasions where for so many reasons a small patch of Gharabari kisam land is sold in much higher price because of the competitive buyers for their respective needs. Similarly, there can be instances where small patch of agricultural lands sold in very low price for the reason of inconvenience in cultivation or high expenditure in cultivation of that small patch. So, because small patch of land sold in high rate or low rate, the valuation of the big patch of land should be taken into consideration is not a sound logic in all cases. There cannot be second opinion from the established increase and galloping price, rise of the lands is an important factor to be taken into consideration while assessing the market price of the land. As mentioned above, the existence or position of the land acquired near to human dwelling or near to irrigation facility also important factors to be taken into consideration while assessing the potential value of the land. It is experienced that the agricultural or low lands near the human dwelling or village hamlets are being rapidly converted to homesteads. Implementation of modern scientific method of cultivation and raising of new and high yielding cash crops are also very common to this part of the State where agriculture is almost only source of income to the major operation of the population. The petitioners’ claim that, their village Patiguda is an adjoining village M.Rampur which is a semi urban and fast growing locality having College, High School, Courts, Hospital, Block Office, Banks and Market complexes within its boundary and situated adjacent to National Highway-217 from Raipur to Gopalpur and that due to demand of house site at M.Rampur, he had developed his acquired land into house site long before acquisition. In plethora of decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court has decided that the method of working out the average price paid under different sale transactions is not proper and Court should not recourse to said method. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further observed that when there are different sale L.A.A. No.32 of 2017 Page 7 of 10
Legal Reasoning
transactions, the transactions representing highest value should be preferred to the rest. Reliance can be placed in the matter of Anjani Malu Dessai Vrs. State of Goa & another, (2010) Vol.13 SCC Page 710 and in the matter of Sri Rani M. Viajalakshmamma Rao Bahadur, Ranee of Vuyyur Vrs. Collector of Madras, (1969) I MLJ 49 (SC) and in the matter of Meherawal Vrs. State, CLR [2012] I Page 1006. In the matter of L.A Collector, Balasore Vrs. Hemanta Samal & another 2008- (1) CLR-518, it is held that:- "Determination of market value of the acquired land-Claimant proved sale deeds in support of valuation-Contention that the sale deeds are got up documents created by the claimant who was an employee of DRDO and had prior knowledge about the acquisition proposal-Other evidence on record to support the rate of land notes in the sale deeds-No evidence or circumstance to show that the documents were created by playing they were manufactured for the simple purpose of obtaining higher compensation-No reason from for discarding evidence." those documents fraud or that One cannot overlook the stiff rise in the market value of the lands in the recent years. There are many instances where the market value of agricultural lands near the human habitation increasing virtually everyday. is So when the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bonafide transaction entered in between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of acquisition. The LAO should have preferred the highest transaction unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course for fixing fair compensation. It is neither pleaded nor any evidence produced by the OP that the sale transaction under Ext.1 was not genuine or the vendor and vendee had colluded to inflate the value of the land with oblique motive. Therefore the sale deed vide Ext.1 can be safely relied. In the instant case, the lands were acquired for the purpose of construction of Talijore M.I.P. vide LA case no. 02/09. This court on a reference has redetermined the market value of Atta, Mala, Berna and Bahal kissam of L.A.A. No.32 of 2017 Page 8 of 10 the remote relevant lands of nearby interior village Kushurla acquired vide LA case no. 01/09 @ Rs. 2,13,000/- per acre in LAR No.182 of 2014 of Prembati Sahu & another by its judgment dated 12.05.2015. So in this circumstance and factors, a considering all pragmatic approach should be adopted in determining the value of the acquired land. Keeping in view of the smallness of the plot which was sold under Ext.1 and deduction towards development charges and conversion charges of acquired land into gharbari kissam from land value in Ext.1 and as such for the interest of justice and considering all in consideration of the location of the acquired land together with its potential value, it is felt by the court if a compensation amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakh rupees) only for Atta kissam of land per acre along with other statutory benefits will be redetermined, then it will be just and reasonable in the instant case.” factors and relevant the (Emphasis supplied) 10. Apart from observing so, the Court below, while passing the impugned Judgment, has relied upon the Judgments of the Supreme Court reported in (2010) 13 SCC 710 (Anjani Malu Dessai Vs. State of Goa & another), (1969) I MLJ 49 (SC) (Sri Rani M. Viajalakshmamma Rao Bahadur, Ranee of Vuyyur Vs. Collector of Madras), reported in CLR (2012) I 1006 Meherawal Vs. State), reported in 2010 LAC (SC) 150 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) and reported in 2001(2)LAC (SC) 409 (Sundar Vs. Union of India) so also L.A.A. No.32 of 2017 Page 9 of 10 Judgment of this Court reported in 2008 (I) CLR 518 (L.A. Collector, Balasore Vs. Hemanta Samal & another). 11. On perusal of the impugned judgment so also L.C.R., it is ascertained that there is no infirmity or illegality in the said Judgment passed in L.A.R. No.150 of 2014 and the Appeal preferred by the State deserves to be dismissed. 12. 13. Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, the State- Appellant is directed to implement the Judgment dated 19.01.2016 passed in L.A.R. No.150 of 2014 within a period of four months from the date of production of the certified copy of this Judgment. …….…………………… S.K. MISHRA, J. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. Dated the 8th November, 2024/Prasant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 11-Nov-2024 17:24:03 L.A.A. No.32 of 2017 Page 10 of 10