Misc. Case No. 16 of 2015 · The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK L.A.A. No.130 of 2018 General Manager. East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar ....... Appellant -Versus- Bhagaban Sethi & others ....... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. G. Mohanty, Senior Panel Counsel For Respondent Nos.1 to 6 : Mr. B.B. Mohapatra, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 7 & 8 : Mr. A. Behera, Addl. Standing Counsel ---------------------------- CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing & Judgment: 14.12.2023 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.K. Mishra, J. This Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant, challenging the Judgment dated 27.10.2018 passed in L.A. Misc. Case No.16 of 2015, vide which rate of compensation has been enhanced to Rs.2,800/- by the Court below with interest, solatium and other benefits as per statute, though the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation @ Rs.2,000/- per decimal of land, with other statutory benefits. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. G. Mohanty, learned Senior Panel Counsel, drawing attention of this Court to the operative portion of the Judgment submits, the Court below has enhanced the compensation amount by process of guestimate, which is not permissible in the present facts and circumstances of the case, though the apex Court has held that for limited purpose, the guestimate process may be adopted. Mr. Mohanty, drawing attention of this Court to Ext.2 further submits, Ext.2 is the certified copy of Registered Sale Deed wherefrom, it is revealed that an area of Ac.0.4.750 decimals of Sarada-III kisam of land was sold at a consideration amount of Rs.15,000/- which was executed on 15.07.2013. The area of the acquired lands being a small patch, the Court below erred in law to enhance the compensation amount to Rs.2,800/- per decimal from Rs.2,000/- per decimal. Hence, the impugned Judgment dated 27.10.2018 passed in L.A. Misc. Case No.16 of 2015 deserves interference. 3. In response to the said submission made by Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Panel Counsel, Mr. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the private Respondent Nos.1 to 6, drawing attention of this Court to the various paragraphs of L.A.A. No.130 of 2018 Page 2 of 8 the impugned Judgment submits, in view of the findings as detailed in the impugned judgment, the present Appeal deserves to be dismissed in limine. Mr. Mohapatra further submits, relying on Ext.2, though the Court below ought to have award more compensation higher than what has been awarded, has reduced the amount of compensation making it almost half of the consideration amount of the land in question, as dealt vide Ext.2. At this juncture, it would be apt to reproduce below the relevant paragraphs of the impugned judgment. “7. Xxx In view of the above it can safely concluded that PW1 to PW3 are just dummy witnesses having no exact idea about fact of the case. Besides oral evidence, documents are produced such as comparable sale instances by filing Ext.2, the certified copy of RSD no.11371304422 dt. 15.7.13 which revealed that an area of Ac.0.4.750 decimals of Sarad-III Kisam land in mouza-Sampada, Chaka-Batia has been sold at a consideration amount of Rs.15,000/- xxx xxx xxx Besides oral evidences, documentary evidences were also produced and which are marked with objection on the ground that those are not certified copies. The documents produced for side of O.Ps are, Ext.A-the xerox attested copy of Working L.A.A. No.130 of 2018 Page 3 of 8 Sheet, Exts.B & C- the copy of notices and Ext.D is the copy of Bench mark valuation. But So far as these exhibits are concerned, it reveals that these are not the certified copies, rather copies attested by Land Acquisition Officer. But neither any officer was examined to prove the above document nor any explanation offered from the side of opposite party in this regard. OPW.1 also admitted during course of cross examination that those are xerox copies and certified to be attested. So it can be said that those documents i.e. Ext.A to Ext.D are no way much helpful to O.Ps. 8. xxx The submission that process of “guestimate” is not applicable in the present reference is not acceptable, as the same judgment does not totally rule out the process of “guestimate”, but the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to hold that in limited purpose, the “guestimate” process may be adopted. In the above decision it has been further held that the market value of the acquired land is to be determined taking into consideration the locational / geographical situation, importance, existing use of the land, prospects and purposes to which the said land may be used, condition, advantages / disadvantages and potentiality in foreseeable future. L.A.A. No.130 of 2018 Page 4 of 8 9. Xxx Here the claimants/petitioners do not tender evidence of any expert. There is also no evidence to facilitate computation of the market value of the case land by capitalizing method. So the only method left for computing the market value of the case land is through comparable sales or other instances. In the instant case, the claimants tender evidence of comparable sale instances by Ext.2, the certified copy of RSD no.11371304422 dt. 15.7.103 which revealed that an area of Ac.0.4.750 decimals of Sarad-III Kisam land in mouza-Sampada, Chaka-Batia has been sold at a consideration amount of Rs.15,000/- The acquired lands also having kisam Sarad-II obviously a better quality of land. The sale instance Ext.2 was found to have been executed before to the date of issuance of the notification under Section-4 or the Act. But no evidence is forthcoming as to where and in what distance the land in question situated from the lands under Ext.1. No village map was also filed to ascertain the exact location. But it is clear that the lands transacted under Ext.2 and the acquired lands are situated under Sampada Mauza. In the case at hand, the opposite parties failed to produce any authenticated document supporting the market value of the land fixed as discussed above. So reliance can be placed on 2003 (Suppl.) OLR 978 (NOC), Land Acquisition L.A.A. No.130 of 2018 Page 5 of 8 Officer Vrs. Trilochan Sahu, wherein it is held that “Non-production of any document supporting the market value fixed by the L.A.O.-Evidence of witnesses of the claimants believable. Thus, in the circumstances, taking into consideration the available oral evidence and documents and submission of learned counsel 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.1,06,000/- for 0.53 decimal. But so far as value of trees as pleaded by claimant is concerned. It is merely pleaded that these numbers of trees were existed over acquired land, but oral evidence adduced by petitioners so far as the trees are concerned no way helpful to the petitioners as discussed in earlier paragraph. Neither any document nor any expert was examined in order to substantiate the pleadings of petitioners. So, in absence of cogent evidence, I am not inclined to allow any higher compensation to petitioners so far as trees are concerned. xxx xxx xxx In my considered opinion, for the discussions as made above, I am of opinion that the claimants are entitled for higher market value. Considering the above, I am of the opinion that the claimants are entitled for higher compensation @ Rs.2,800/- (Rupees two thousands and eight L.A.A. No.130 of 2018 Page 6 of 8 hundred only) per decimal towards the valuation of the acquired land only. Hence it is ordered.” (Emphasis supplied) 4. Law is well settled that the function of the Court in awarding compensation under the Act, is to ascertain the market value of the land at the date of the notification u/s.4(1) of the Act and the methods of valuation may be (1) opinion of experts, (2) the prices paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase or sale of the lands acquired or of the lands adjacent to those acquired and possessing the same or similar advantages, and (3) a number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the land acquired. 5. From the discussions made in the impugned Judgment so also on perusal of evidences on record (L.C.R.) and the enhanced compensation amount being a paltry amount of Rs.800/- per decimal, over and above the compensation awarded by the L.A.O, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned award, deserving interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed. L.A.A. No.130 of 2018 Page 7 of 8 6. In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, the Appellant is directed to act in terms of the impugned Judgment dated 27.10.2018 passed in L.A. Misc. Case No.16 of 2015 within a period of eight weeks hence. 7. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application as per rules. …….….…………………… S.K. MISHRA, J. High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 14th December, 2023 /Prasant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 18-Dec-2023 11:21:22 L.A.A. No.130 of 2018 Page 8 of 8