Misc. Case No. 117 of 2013 · The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK L.A.A No.123 of 2018 Union of India ....... Appellant -Versus- Biswanath Mahapatra ....... Respondents and others For Appellant : Mr. B.S. Rayaguru, Central Govt. Counsel For Respondents No.1 : Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate For Respondents Nos.2 & 3 : Mr. B. Panigrahi, Addl. Standing Counsel ----- CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA _____________________________________________________________ Date of Hearing and Judgment: 02.07.2024 _____________________________________________________________ S.K. MISHRA,J. 1. This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 30th August, 2018 in L.A. Misc. Case No.117 of 2013, vide which the Court below enhanced the Page 1 of 11 compensation amount to Rs.15,000/- per decimal for acquiring the land of the Respondent No.1 and ordered for payment of interest, so also solatium with other benefits as per the statute. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the suit lands i.e. Plot Nos.759 and 787 under Khata No.285/471, total Ac.0.44 decimals of land under Mouza-Laxmiprasad, P.S. Itamati, District-Nayagarh belonging to Respondent No.1 have been acquired by the Government for Khurda-Bolangir Rail Link project. For the said acquisition a sum of Rs.4,42,898/-, 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 Kisam of the acquired lands were recorded as Sarad-II & Sarad Dofasali-II, but the same L.A.A. No.123 of 2018 Page 2 of 11 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 acquired land. The Respondent No.1 also took a plea that since one of the lands in the acquired village has been sold @ Rs.60,000/- per decimal before acquisition, compensation for his land should also be fixed at 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.
Legal Reasoning
This Court in Nityananda Namtoar & Others vs. L.A. Officer-Cum Collector, Keonjhar, reported in 2014 (supp.-II) L.A.A. No.123 of 2018 Page 7 of 11 OLR 144, 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 shown to them” and the Court below also referred to the said judgment while passing the impugned judgment. 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 the reference made under Section 18 of the Act is bad, it would be 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, 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 Chandra Bhan (Dead) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Ghaziabad Dev. Authority (AIR Online 2014 SC 477), L.A.A. No.123 of 2018 Page 8 of 11 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.” 11. Referring to the said judgment of the apex Court, this Court, in 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. L.A.A. No.123 of 2018 Page 9 of 11 8. Further, the provisions do not prescribe any 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 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.” to have Referring to the case of Sujata Senapati (supra), this Court also took a similar view in 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 Respondent No.1 received the compensation under protest and filed an application for reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894. 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, 1894. L.A.A. No.123 of 2018 Page 10 of 11 13. In view of the evidence on record and detailed discussion made above, so also the settled position of law, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. 14. Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed. 15. In view of dismissal of the Appeal, the differential enhanced amount of compensation, in terms of the impugned judgment dated 30th August, 2018 in L.A. Misc. No.117 of 2013, be worked out and paid to Respondent No.1 with interest, solatium and other benefits as per the statute within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment. …….….…………………… S.K. MISHRA, J. Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 2nd July, 2024/Prasant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 09-Jul-2024 17:52:13 L.A.A. No.123 of 2018 Page 11 of 11
Arguments
Heard Mr. Rayaguru, learned Central Government Counsel, so also Mr. Tripathy, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and Mr. Panigrahi, learned Counsel for the State-Respondent Nos.2 & 3. 4. Mr. Rayaguru, learned Central Government Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the referral Court has allowed the claim of the Respondent No.1 without considering the evidence adduced by the Appellant. He further submitted that the Respondent No.1 has received the amount of L.A.A. No.123 of 2018 Page 3 of 11 compensation without any objection. While passing the impugned Judgment, the referral Court has categorically observed that the land in Ext.1 is a small patch of land than the land in question. The Kisam of the land and location are in different Chaka. Even though the referral 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 compensation in a whimsical manner. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that when the documents exhibited, so also oral evidences adduced by the Claimant/Respondent No.1 were negatived and disbelieved, the Court below should have dismissed the claim of the Claimant in limine. Mr. Rayaguru further submitted that the Claimant/Respondent No.1 received the awarded amount without any objection and no document was exhibited before the referral Court to show that the Claimant received the awarded amount under protest. Accordingly, he prays for setting aside the impugned judgment. 5. Mr. Tripathy, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1, relying on the judgment dated 13.03.2023 passed by this Court in L.A.A. No.122 of 2018, submitted that the present L.A.A. No.123 of 2018 Page 4 of 11 Appeal is identical to L.A.A. No.122 of 2018 and the Appellant- Union of India is also the Appellant in L.A.A. No.122 of 2018. The suit land in the present Appeal was also acquired in terms of the same notification for the same purpose which was the subject matter of challenge in L.A.A Case No.122 of 2018. He also submitted that the grounds on which the appellant-Union of India has assailed the impugned Judgment are identical to the grounds agitated in L.A.A. No.122 of 2018, which has already been dismissed by this Court. 6. Mr. Tripathy further submitted that there is no infirmity in the judgment passed in L.A. Misc. Case No.117 of 2013. He further submitted that the LAO awarded a sum of Rs.4,42,898/- in total for acquiring Ac.0.44 decimals 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. Mr. Tripathy further submitted 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, L.A.A. No.123 of 2018 Page 5 of 11 a reference was rightly made to the Court below. He further submitted 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 such acquisition of land usefully affected the entire land. He also submitted 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. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the Appeal with a further prayer to direct the Appellant-Union of India to make the payment of the differential enhanced amount of compensation to the private Respondent within a stipulated time period. 7. As is revealed from the impugned judgment so also L.C.R., the Appellant examined one witness as O.P.W.1, who is an Amin and in support of its stand, 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 estoppel. The Respondent No.1 examined four witnesses as P.Ws. 1 to 4 to substantiate his claim for enhancement of compensation. L.A.A. No.123 of 2018 Page 6 of 11 8. Taking into consideration the evidence on record, so also relying on the judgment of this Court in The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Rengali Irrigation Project -Vrs- Golekha Sahoo & others, reported in 2015(1) CLR 93 and judgment dated 19th May, 2018 in L.A. Misc. Case No.70 of 2013 which pertains to determination of valuation of similar land, the Court below fixed the market price of land of Sarada-II & Sarada Dofasli-II kisam at Rs.15,000/- per decimal and came to a conclusion that the Claimant/present Respondent No.1 is entitled for higher compensation @ Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousands) per decimal towards the valuation of acquired land. Relevant portion from the impugned judgment is extracted below, for ready reference. “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 Acquisition Officer Rengali Irrigation Project, 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.” 9.