The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK L.A.A. No.109 of 2019 Union of India ....... Appellant Kumudini Das & another ....... Respondents -Versus- For Appellant For Respondents : Mr. D.R. Mohapatra, Central Govt. Counsel : Mr. A. Behera, Addl. Standing Counsel ---------------------------- CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing & Judgment: 14.03.2024 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.K. Mishra, J. Though this Appeal is on board under the heading “Fresh Admission”, since the legal heirs of private Respondent No.1 have already rendered appearance on being noticed in the matter of limitation and the delay has been condoned and the State/Respondent No.2 is represented through the learned Additional Standing counsel for the State, this being an Appeal of the year 2019, on consent of all the parties, is taken up for hearing and final disposal without calling for the L.C.R. 2. This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 07.08.2019 passed in L.A. Reference Case No.133 of 2006, vide which the referral Court, knowing about the wrong recording of Kisam of one of the lands in the Hal record to be contrary to the Sabik record, enhanced the compensation amount @ Rs.8,00,000/- per acre instead of Rs.6,20,000/- per acre, as was valued by the Land Acquisition Officer. 3.
Legal Reasoning
The brief background facts, which led to filing of this Appeal, is that East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar, has acquired the land of the present Respondent No.1 measuring an area of Ac.0.440 decimals from plot No.1025 and Ac.0.430 decimal from Plot No.1033 of Mouza-Totapada, District- Khordha. Compensation in total amounting of Rs.6,16,800/- was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer for acquisition of land extending an area of Ac.0.870 decimal in total. However, the present Respondent No.1 objected to such award on the ground that the amount paid by the Land Acquisition Officer is very low, as the market value of the acquired land is Rs.20,00,000/- per acre. Apart from that, it was objected on the ground that kisam of both the lands in Plot No.1025 and L.A.A. No.109 of 2019 Page 2 of 8 1033 are of Sarada-II, but the same has been wrongly recorded as Sarada-I so far as Plot No.1025, though in the Sabik khata, the kisam of both the lands were recorded as Sarada-II. Accordingly, a prayer was made for enhancement of compensation amount along with other statutory benefits, as provided under the Act, 1894. On being so objected, the matter was referred to the Court below to decide and determine the said reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, 1894 which was registered as L.A. Reference Case No.133 of 2006. The referral Court framed the following issues:- “i) Whether the Land Acquisition Authority has properly valued the land of the petitioner. ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get any enhanced compensation for acquisition of her land. iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get any compensation for loss of profit.” 4. After giving chance to the parties to lead their evidence, the Court below, taking into consideration the evidence on record, passed the impugned judgment that the present Respondent No.1 is entitled to get compensation of Rs.3,52,000/- for the acquisition of land for an area of Ac.0.440 decimals, vide Plot No.1025, Khata No.100 of L.A.A. No.109 of 2019 Page 3 of 8 Mouza-Totapada @ Rs.8,00,000/- per acre along with additional market value @ 12% per annum from the date of publication of notice under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act till the date of taking possession of the land, statutory solatium @ 30% in terms of Section 23(1-A) & (2) of the L.A. Act and interest @ 9% per annum for the year (1st year) after the acquisition of land and @15% per annum for the subsequent years till the date of the said order in view of the provisions
Legal Reasoning
enshrined under Section 28 of the L.A. Act, 1894. Hence, this Appeal. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Union of India, reiterating the grounds agitated in the Memorandum of Appeal submits, the Court below neither called for valuation report nor the present Respondent No.1 (claimant before the Court below) was directed to produce the same. Further, the Respondent did not produce any document to substantiate the valuation of the land claimed by her and only on the basis of evidence of P.W.1, the Court below directed for payment of compensation, though it could have directed the claimant (present Respondent No.1) to produce the valuation report before ordering so. L.A.A. No.109 of 2019 Page 4 of 8 6. Though, no such ground was agitated before the referral Court so also in this Appeal, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits, the findings of the Court below that the Kisam of land of Plot No.1025 being Sarada(II) in the Sabik record, which was wrongly recorded as Sarada (I) in the Hal record, is unjustified as the present Respondent did not take necessary steps in accordance with law for rectification of the said error crept in the ROR. However, this Court is of the view that such a ground, which was never agitated before the referral Court so also in the Memorandum of Appeal, at this juncture, is not acceptable. 7. Though, several grounds have been agitated in this Appeal, basically the impugned judgment has been challenged on the ground that the Court below has failed to apply his judicious mind while passing the impugned judgment, which has been passed solely basing on the oral evidence of P.W.1. 8. In response to the submissions made by learned Counsel for the Appellant, learned Counsel for the private Respondent, drawing attention of this Court to the observation made in Para-9 of the impugned judgment L.A.A. No.109 of 2019 Page 5 of 8 submits, there being no infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and the same being based on the evidence on record, needs no interference and the Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. In view of such submission made by learned Counsel for the Respondents, it would be apt to reproduce below Para-9 of the impugned judgment:- Land Acquisition Officer “09. The awarded compensation to the petitioner for acquisition of Sarada Anajalasechita-I @ Rs.6,20,000/-(Rupees Six Lacs Twenty Thousand) and Sarada Anajalasechita-II @ Rs.8,00,000/-(Rupees Eight Lacs), but he has not submitted a scrap of paper justifying award of compensation in two different rates. Though, the Ops cross-examined P.W.1 at length, but no useful cross-examination has been made to discard his version. It reveals from Ext.4 that Sabik Plot No.1239 corresponds to Hal Plot No.1025 which is of chaka land. From Ext.2, it is clear that previously plot No.1025 was of Sarada-II and Ext.3 reveals that Plot No.1025 included under chaka plot. The petitioner enhanced compensation@ Rs.20,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Lacs) per acre of the acquired land, but she has not filed any document to that effect. As plot No.1025 is coming under chaka land as well as previously it was recorded as sarada-II in the Sabik khata vide Ext.2, the petitioner claims compensation at par with plot No.1033 i.e.,@ Rs.8,00,000/-(Rupees Eight Lacs) per acre. In the above premises, it is the outlook of the Court to see whether there is any basis in the evidence of the petitioner to hold that the land acquired from plot No.1025 of khata No.100 must not be less than Rs.8,00,000/-(Rupees Eight Lacs) per acre at the time of acquisition, but the railway has paid compensation at a lower price. Apart from the documents relied upon by the petitioner, this Court also perused the materials submitted by the claims L.A.A. No.109 of 2019 Page 6 of 8 Special Land Acquisition Officer. The Ops failed to justify regarding awarding of compensation for Plot No.1025 @ Rs.6,20,000/-(Rupees Six Lacs Twenty Thousand) and plot No.1033 @ Rs.8,00,000/-(Rupees Eight Lacs). The Land Acquisition Officer merely mentioned in the reference form No.18 sarada Anajalasechita-I compensation is @ Rs.6,20,000/-(Rupees Six Lacs Twenty Thousand) and for Sarada Anajalasechita-II @ Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lacs) is not proper. Further is of Sarada he has not clarified which plot is of Sarada Anajalasechita-I and which plot Anajalasechita-II land.” that for (Emphasis Supplied) 10. From the said finding of the Court below, it is amply clear that the Kisam of Plot No.1025 in the Sabik record was Sarada Anajalasechita-II, whereas in the Hal record it was wrongly recorded as Sarada Anajalasechita-I. Hence, the Land Acquisition Officer, though awarded a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- per acre so far as Hal Plot No.1033, the same being of Kisam Sarada Anajalasechita-II, but so far as Hal Plot No.1025, which is corresponding to Sabik Plot No.1239, the kisam of the land being wrongly recorded as “Sarada Anajalasechita-I”, awarded compensation @ Rs.6,20,000/- per acre. The Court below, taking into consideration Ext.2 so also Ext.4, came to a conclusion that previously Plot No.1025 was of Sarada-II kisam and Ext.3 proves that Plot No.1025 is included under the chaka plot, L.A.A. No.109 of 2019 Page 7 of 8 which includes Plot No.1033 also, for which the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs.8,00,000/- per acre for the said plot. In view of the said findings of the Court below, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment passed in L.A. Reference Case No.133 of 2006. 11. 12. Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed. The Appellant is directed to act in terms of the judgment passed in L.A. Reference Case No.133 of 2006 within two months hence. …….….…………………… S.K. MISHRA, J. High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 14th March, 2024 /Kanhu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KANHU BEHERA Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 21-Mar-2024 18:50:37 L.A.A. No.109 of 2019 Page 8 of 8