The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK L.A.A. No.133 of 2018 Union of India ....... Appellant Sachala Swain & others ....... Respondents -Versus- For Appellant : Mr. B.K. Pardhi, Central Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.1 Advocate : Mr. A.K. Swain,
Legal Reasoning
For Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Mr. B. Panigrahi, Addl. Standing Counsel ---------------------------- CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing & Judgment: 02.07.2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.K. MISHRA, J. 1. This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 22.11.2018 passed in L.A. Misc. Case No.71 of 2008 by the Court below, vide which it was held that the claimant (present Respondent No.1) is entitled to get the compensation @ Rs.3,500/- per decimal for acquiring his land and interest, so also solatium with other benefits, as per the statute. Page 1 of 7 2. As per the notification under Section 4 (i) of the Act, 1894 the Land Acquisition Officer, Nayagarh, acquired lands of the Respondent No.1 measuring Ac.0.23 decimals in Plot No.1378/1828 of Kisam Sarad Do Fosali-I, under Khata No.330/78, situated at village-Dhenkana, P.S./Dist: Nayagarh. Said acquisition was for the purpose of Khurda-Bolangir Rail Link Project. The L.A.O assessed the compensation in total at Rs.52,051/-. The said assessed compensation having been received under protest, the reference was made to the Court below, which was registered as L.A. Misc. Case No.71 of 2008. 3. After giving opportunities to the parties to have their say and lead evidence, the Court below framed the following two issues:- “(1) What is the fair market value of the acquired land at the time of publication of case acquisition U/s.4(1) of the Act? (2) To what relief entitled for?” the claimant/petitioner is 4. The said issues were dealt with and answered together by coming to a conclusion that the Claimant is entitled to get the compensation @ Rs.3,500/- per decimals for acquiring her land and interest, solatium and other benefits as per the statute. 5. The General Manager, East-Coast Railway, who was the Respondent No.2 before the Court below, has preferred this Appeal on the ground that the impugned judgment is perverse, Page 2 of 7 as it was passed without following due procedure of law and the documentary as well as oral evidences on record have been overlooked by the Court below. 6. Though various grounds have been agitated in the Memorandum of Appeal, Mr. Pardhi, learned Central Government Counsel confines his argument to Ground Nos.C, D, F & G to challenge the legality of the impugned judgment dated 22.11.2018 passed in L.A. Misc. Case No.71 of 2008. Mr. Pardhi submitted that the Court below erred in law to pass the impugned judgment without taking note of the oral as well as documentary evidence lead by the present Appellant (Opposite party No.2 before the Court below) and the impugned judgment, being perverse, deserves interference by this Court. 7. In response to the submission made by the learned Central Government Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Swain, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. Rather, the Court below has passed a reasoned and well discussed judgment taking into consideration the oral as well as documentary evidence on record. Mr. Swain further submitted that in para-8 of the impugned judgment, the Court below has assigned the reasons for not taking into consideration the documents which were Page 3 of 7 marked as Exts.A to D with objection from the side of the present Appellant. Hence, the grounds taken in the Memorandum of Appeal is misconceived, being contrary to the record. Apart from the said submission, drawing attention of this Court to the findings given by the Court below vide para-11 of the impugned judgment, Mr. Swain further submitted that though the Court below took into consideration Ext.1 and also gave observation that the land of the Petitioner (Respondent No.1), which was acquired by the Railways, are of better quality than the land sold vide Ext.1, but awarded less compensation than the consideration amount paid for purchasing Sarada Do Fasali-I kisam of land in the same mouza and the compensation should not have been less than Rs.4,000/-. Still the Court below awarded the compensation @ Rs.3,500/- per decimal towards valuation of the acquired land by enhancing the same from Rs.1986/- per decimal, as was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. There being no infirmity in the impugned judgment, the Appeal deserves to be dismissed in limine. Mr. Swain further submitted that direction be given to the Appellant to disburse the enhanced compensation amount within a stipulated period. 8. Though a ground has been taken in the Memorandum of Appeal that the evidence on record favouring the present Page 4 of 7 Appellant were not taken into consideration while passing the impugned judgment, it has not been specifically demonstrated before this court as to which evidences were not taken into consideration. A query being made, excepting Ext-1, as detailed above, learned Counsel for the Appellant also failed to demonstrate before this Court from the depositions as well as documentary evidences available on record, including evidence of OPW 1, as to which portion of the evidence was not taken into consideration while passing the impugned judgment. 9. In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the private Respondent, it would be apt to reproduce below the relevant portion from para-11 of the impugned judgment for ready reference:- “11. xxx xxx xxx In the instant case, the claimant tender evidence of comparable sale instance by filing RSD no.3702 dtd. 03.11.2006, which revealed that an area of Ac.0.05 decimals of Sarad Dofasli-I Kisam land in mouza-Dhenkana has been sold at a consideration amount of Rs.20,000/-. Although no village map was filed from side of petitioner to show that the actual location of acquired land but it is also a fact that the property which was transacted through Ext.1 can be said at a comparable position with the property which was acquired by Railway from the petitioners as the properties situated under village- Dhenkana. No doubt, the property of the petitioner which was acquired by Railway is better quality of land than the lands in Ext.1. The evidence of P.Ws clearly shows the land in question have locational advantage. Village Basti is just adjacent to the acquired land. In in my considered view, the guess work Page 5 of 7 backdrop of EXT.1 and evidences of PWs regarding location of property would be the proper approach of for ascertaining market value of the land in question. the In my considered view, discussions as made above, I am of opinion that the claimant is entitled for higher market value. the purpose for 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. Thus, in the circumstances, while there is no direct evidence to ascertain the market value of the acquired land, the only course available is to it by guess estimate. Taking into ascertain 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 claimant. The L.A.O has valued the acquired land @ Rs.1986/- per decimal. As observed by Hon'ble Court in 2014 (Supp-II) OLR- 144 at para 30 that 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". Thus, considering the locational advantage of acquired land in the said mouza, I am of the opinion that the claimant is entitled for higher compensation @ Rs.3500/- per decimal towards the valuation of the acquired land. Hence it is ordered:” (Emphasis Supplied) 10. As is ascertained from the impugned judgment, the Court below, relying on the judgments of the apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer, Avangera vs. P. Veerabhabarappa, reported in AIR 1984 SC 774 and judgment reported in 2014 (Supp.-II) OLR 144 (Nityananda Namtoar & others Vs. L.A. Officer-cum-Collector, Keonjhar and another) so also the evidences on record, enhanced the compensation amount, as detailed above. Page 6 of 7 11. From the above, this Court is of the view that the Court below was justified to enhance the compensation from Rs.1,986/- per decimal to Rs.3,500/- per decimal towards valuation of the acquired land of the private Respondent and while doing so, has given sufficient reason to enhance the compensation amount and there is no need to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 22.11.2018 passed in L.A. Misc. Case No.71 of 2008. 12. Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed. 13. The Appellant-Union of India is directed to act in terms of impugned judgment and pay the differential compensation amount with other statutory benefits, as detailed vide the impugned judgment, within three months hence. 14. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application as per rules. ….………..………… S.K. Mishra, J. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 2nd July, 2024/ Prasant Digitally Signed Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 09-Jul-2024 17:52:14 Page 7 of 7