The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK LAA No.122 of 2018 Union of India ....... Appellant -Versus- Biswanath Mahapatra ....... Respondents and others Advocates appeared through Hybrid Mode For Appellant : Mr. B.K. Pardhi, CGC For Respondents : Mr. A. Tripathy, Adv. (Respondent No.1) Mr. G.N. Rout, A.S.C. ----- CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA _____________________________________________________________ Date of Hearing and Judgment: 13.03.2023 _____________________________________________________________ S.K. MISHRA,J. 1. This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 30th August, 2018 in L.A. Misc. Case 116 of 2013, vide which the court below enhanced the compensation amount to Rs.15,000/- per decimal. L.A.A. No.6 of 2018 Page 1 of 11
Facts
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the suit land i.e. Plot Nos.780 and 828 under Khata No.153, total Ac.052 decimals of land under Mouza-Laxmiprasad, P.S. Itamati, District- Nayagarh belonging to Respondent No.1 has been acquired by the Government for B.G. Rail Link project. For the said acquisition a sum of Rs.5,23,425/- in total was awarded for land value and the same was paid to the claimant/Respondent No.1 with other benefits, which was received by him under protest. The Respondent No.1 filed objection before the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) for enhancement of the awarded compensation amount. The stand of the Respondent No.1 before the court below, inter alia, was that while assessing the market value of the suit land, a very lower compensation was awarded by the LAO. It is further case of the Respondent No.1 that though Kissam of the acquired land was recorded as Sarad-II Kissam, but the same is absolutely fit to be used for homestead purpose as the suit land is adjacent to NAC area of Nayagarh and other residential houses, Holly Family School, Hospital and R.W.S.S. Office are also situated nearer to the L.A.A. No.122 of 2018 Page 2 of 11 acquired land. The Respondent No.1 also took a plea that since one of the land in the acquired village has been sold @ Rs.60,000/- per decimal before acquisition, compensation for his land should also be fixed as per with the same rate. After taking note of pleadings, so also evidence on record, the court below enhanced the compensation amount to Rs.15,000/- per decimal, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present Appeal. 3. Though the matter has been listed under the heading “For Admission” on consent of the learned Counsel for the Parties, matter is taken up for final disposal.
Legal Reasoning
shown to them, so also judgment of this Court in the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Rengali Irrigation Project, Baghuabol, vs. Golekha Sahoo & others, reported in 2015 (I) CLR 93, the court below, while enhancing the compensation amount to Rs.15,000/- per decimal, observed as follows. “Law is settled that in a land acquisition referral, previous judgment of the Court relating to the same notification and of the same village can be a strong basis for determining the market value of the land in a subsequent case. In a recent reported decision viz. The Special Land Irrigation Project, Acquisition Officer Rengali Baghuabal, Vrs. Golekha Sahoo & Ors. 2015 (I) CLR 93, the Hon’ble High Court of Odisha held that compensation for the acquired land fixed on par with similar land involved in another case situated in one village and acquired under one notification-the compensation is justified.” L.A.A. No.122 of 2018 Page 7 of 11 10. Since one of the grounds taken in the Appeal is that the Respondent No.1 received the compensation amount without any protest/objection and hence, the reference made under Section 18 of the Act is bad, it is apt to deal with the said ground in terms of the settled position of law. The apex Court in Ajit Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 67, at Paragraph 5, held as follows: “ 5. Having regard to the contiguity of these lands the High Court is correct in its valuation. Besides, the date of notification, issued under Section 4 of the Act, is October, 4, 1978 while Exh. R-6 is neared to it, namely August 16, 1978, in comparison to Exh. A-6 dated January, 14, 1977. Inasmuch as the appellants have filed an application for reference under Section 18 of the Act that will manifest their intention. Therefore, the protest against the award of the Collector is implied notwithstanding the acceptance of compensation. The District Judge and the High Court, therefore, fell into patent error in denying the enhanced compensation to the appellants. Similarly, in case of Chandra Bhan (Dead) (AIR Online 2014 SC 477), referring to the judgment in Ajit Singh and others, it was further held as follows: “The principal contention urged by the learned counsel for GDA was that since the compensation was accepted by the claimants without any protest, the reference was not maintainable. In our opinion, this contention is without any substance for several reasons. In Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab it was held that since the appellants therein had filed an application for reference under Section 18 of the Act, it manifested their intention. Consequently, the protest against the award of the Collector was implied notwithstanding the acceptance of compensation.” L.A.A. No.122 of 2018 Page 8 of 11 11. Referring to the said judgment of the apex Court, this Court, in case of Sujata Senapati v. Land Acquisition Zone Officer, Khurda Road, Boudh, reported in AIR Online 2022 Orissa 2010, vide Paragraphs 7 and 8, further held as follows: “7. That apart, on bare perusal of RFCTLAR & R Act, 2013 vis-a-vis L.A. Act, 1894, it is crystal clear that there is no such specific procedure or form provided under the said acts for recording the protest and the very fact of filing an application for reference by interested person within the stipulated period of limitation, will lead to an inference of fact that the interested person never accepted the compensation without protest and the protest is very much inherent. The right to file a petition for proper assessment of the market value of the land acquired is inherent in the right of ownership of a person to the property that is sought to be acquired by the State, which is the only protection granted to the owner of the land. On a hyper-technical ground that express protest was not made, on the said basis State cannot deny the land owner, the right to seek reference to the Civil Court for a reasonable compensation. Fair administration of the State demands that they bestow objective approach to such a situation and citizens are not deprived of their property just for hyper-technical reason. Further, the provisions do not prescribe any 8. particular mode of protest. It is also no where postulate that the protest must be in writing. Hence, the referral Court should bear in mind the purport and purpose in reference. As the award of the Collector is nothing but an offer on behalf of the Government, the amount of compensation payable to a person, who is deprived of his property in a Welfare State under the State’s right of eminent domain, a person so deprived of his property is entitled to have fair and reasonable amount of compensation with reference to the true market value of the land as on the date of issuance of notification and the same should not be denied on mere technical plea.” L.A.A. No.122 of 2018 Page 9 of 11 Referring to the case of Sujata Senapati (supra), this Court also took a similar view in case of Prahallad Sahu v. Land Acquisition Zone Officer, Khurda Road, Boudh, reported in AIR 2023 Orissa 34. 12. That apart, the impugned judgment also well demonstrates that the present Respondent No.1 received the compensation under protest and filed an application for reference under Section 18 of the Act after receiving the said compensation. In view of the settled position of law, so also admitted facts on record, the said ground agitated by the Appellant is unsustainable. Moreover, the court below has rightly dealt with the objection under Section 18 of the Act. 13. In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Parties and detailed discussion made above, so also the settled position of law, I am not inclined to entertain the Appeal. 14. Accordingly, the LAA stands dismissed. 15. The differential enhanced amount of compensation in terms of the impugned judgment dated 30th August, 2018 in L.A.A. No.122 of 2018 Page 10 of 11 L.A. Misc. No.116 of 2013 be worked out and be paid to Respondent No.1 with interest, solatium and other benefits as per statute within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. (S.K. MISHRA) (JUDGE) Orissa High Court Dated, 13th March, 2023/Padma L.A.A. No.122 of 2018 Page 11 of 11
Arguments
4. Heard Mr. Pardhi, learned Central Government Counsel, so also Mr. Tripathy, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and Mr. Rout, learned Counsel for the State-Respondent No.2. 5. Mr. Pardhi, learned CGC for the Appellant submits that the trial court has allowed the claim of the Respondent No.1 without considering the evidence adduced by the Appellant. He further submits that the Respondent No.1 has received the amount of compensation without any objection. While the trial L.A.A. No.122 of 2018 Page 3 of 11 court passed the impugned judgment, it has categorically observed that the land in Ext. 1 is a small patch of land than the land in question, the Kissam and location of the land are in different Chaka. Even though the trial court observed that Ext. 1 i.e. RSD dated 21.10.2011, is not an example to compare the valuation of the acquired land, at the same time it enhanced the award in a whimsical manner. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submits that when the documents exhibited, so also oral evidences adduced by the claimant/Respondent No.1 are negative and disbelieved, the court below should have dismissed the claim of the claimant in limine. Mr. Pardhi further submits that the Appellant in its evidence stated that the claimant/Respondent No.1 received the awarded amount without any objection and the same has not been rebutted by the Respondent No.1 by adducing any evidence and no document was exhibited before the trial court to show that the claimant received the earlier awarded amount under protest. Accordingly, he prays for setting aside the impugned judgment. L.A.A. No.122 of 2018 Page 4 of 11 6. Mr. Tripathy, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 submits that there is no infirmity in the judgment passed in L.A. Misc. Case No.116 of 2013. He further submits that the LAO awarded a sum of Rs.5,23,425/- in total for acquiring Ac.0.52 decimal of land of the Respondent No.1, which roughly comes around Rs.10,000/- per decimal and the court below, taking into consideration the pleadings and evidence on record, enhanced the said compensation amount @ Rs.15,000/- per decimal. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 further submits that there being no infirmity in the impugned judgment, the Appeal deserves to be dismissed in limine. He submits that it can be well ascertained from the impugned judgment that the private Respondent No.1 received compensation amount under protest and having received the compensation amount under protest, the reference came before the court below. He further submits that the land, which was acquired by the LAO, was kept for plotting business and the present Respondent No.1 leveled the same for residential purpose and hence, such acquisition of land L.A.A. No.122 of 2018 Page 5 of 11 usefully affected the entire land. He also submits that other persons, having their land in the same locality, received compensation of Rs.60,000/- per decimal before the said acquisition and the said fact was duly pleaded and proved before the court below and there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment dated 30th August, 2018 and prays for dismissal of the Appeal. 7. As is revealed from the impugned judgment, the Appellant examined one witness as O.P.W.1, who is an Amin and in support of its case, it relied on four documents. Also, the Appellant filed show-cause stating therein that the case is not maintainable as there is no cause of action and the referral case is hit by theory of estoppels. The Respondent No.1 examined three witnesses as P.Ws. 1 to 3. 8. Taking into consideration the evidence on record, so also relying on the judgment of the apex Court in case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Avangera vs. P. Veerabhabarappa, reported in AIR 1984 SC 774 and judgment dated 19th May, 2018 in L.A. Misc. Case No.70 of 2013, the court below fixed the market price of land of Sarada-II kissam at Rs.15,000/- L.A.A. No.122 of 2018 Page 6 of 11 per decimal and came to the conclusion that the Appellant/present Respondent No.1 is entitled for higher compensation @ Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousands) per decimal towards the valuation of acquired land. 9. Further, relying on the judgment of this Court in Nityananda Namtoar & Others vs. L.A. Officer-Cum Collector, Keonjhar, reported in 2014 (supp.-II) OLR 144, wherein this Court observed that “compensation should neither be a bonanza for the claimant nor it should give a feeling in the mind of the claimant that an act of pittance is