Thakur Kuldeep Singh (D) through LR and others v. Union of India and others) and in AIR
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK L.A.A. No 110 of 2019 Union of India ....... Appellant -Versus- Jogendra Kumar Muduli @ JogeswarMuduli and another ....... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. S.S. Kashyap, CGC For Respondent No.1 : Mr. M.K. Dash, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. T.K. Biswal, AGA ---------------------------- CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 03.09.2024 Date of Judgment: 30.09.2024 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.K. Mishra, J. This Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment dated 30.09.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Khordha in L.A. Reference Case No.51 of 2015, vide which the Court below allowed the claim of the Claimant (Respondent L.A.A. No.110 of 2019 Page 1 of 11 No.1 in the present Appeal) and ordered for higher compensation. 2. The brief back ground facts, which led to filing of this Appeal, is that pursuant to notification made under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, shortly, ‘the Act, 1894’, an area of Ac.0.065dec. of land relating to Plot No.1403, under Khata No.138 of Kisam-Gharabari of Mouza- Dabardhua in the district of Khordha belonging to the Claimant, having fruit bearing trees over the said land, was acquired for the purpose of Khordha Road-Bolangir New Broad Gauge Rail Link Project, Khordha. The Land Acquisition Officer, shortly, ‘LAO’, assessed the compensation at Rs. 23,237/- for land and Rs. 33,098/- for trees, in total Rs.84,108/-, which includes interest and solatium, which the Claimant/private Respondent received under protest. Thereafter, in a reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, which was registered as L.A. Reference Case No.51 of 2015, the referral Court, relying on the evidence on record and judgments of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2010 SC 1272 (Thakur Kuldeep Singh (D) through LR and others Vs. Union of India and others) and in AIR 2013 SC 3654 (Ashrafi and others Vs. State of Haryana and others) vide L.A.A. No.110 of 2019 Page 2 of 11 order dated 30.09.2019, allowed the claim of the Claimant and ordered for enhanced compensation of Rs.26,000/- per decimal for Gharabari kisam of land @ Rs.4,00,000/- per acre and Rs.65,000/-, instead of Rs.33,098/-, for loss of trees and ordered for payment of interest so also solatium and other benefits as per the statute. Hence, this Appeal. 3. The Appeal has been preferred basically on the grounds that the Court below passed the order of enhancement of compensation without considering the available material evidence so also brushing aside the bench mark valuation of the acquired land. Further, the court below has enhanced the compensation relying on the unsupported statements of P.W.1, who is an interested witness. The Court below awarded compensation towards loss of trees sympathetically without considering the valuation made by the Horticulture Department Officials in presence of the Revenue Inspector and the Tahasildar. Further, the Court below enhanced the value of land and trees adopting highly erroneous method. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant, reiterating the grounds agitated in the memorandum of appeal, submitted L.A.A. No.110 of 2019 Page 3 of 11 that the notification under section 4(1) of the L.A. Act, 1894 was issued on 22.01.2013 and the bench mark valuation was obtained on 13.07.2013, thereafter physical possession of the land of the private Respondent was taken on 31.10.2013. However, the referral Court, while enhancing the compensation, took note of bench mark valuation report supplied by Sub-Registrar, Bolagarh to the Claimant/private Respondent in the year 2017, which was marked as Ext.4, so also RSD of the year 2005, marked as Ext.3 and by adopting highly erroneous method of guess work, enhanced not only the price of the Gharabari kisam of land from Rs.3,57,500/- per acre to Rs.4,00,000/- per acre but also the value of the trees from Rs.33,098/- to Rs.65,000/-. Hence, the impugned award passed by the referral Court deserves interference, being so done sympathetically and without any basis. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that though the guess work is permissible, as per the settled position of law, such guess work should be reasonable to balance the equities and fix just and fair market value in terms of the parameters specified under section 23 of the Act, 1894. But in the present case, the referral Court L.A.A. No.110 of 2019 Page 4 of 11 ignored the said aspect while enhancing the compensation for the land so also for the trees. 6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the private Respondent, drawing attention of this Court to the Bench Mark Valuation furnished to the present Respondent No.1 dated 14.07.2017, which was marked as Ext.4, submitted that the Sub-Registrar, Bolgarh, on submission of application for inspection, intimated the Respondent No.1 in the year 2017 that the Government rate of Plot No.1403 of kisam Gharabari belonging to the private Respondent, which was acquired by the State, to be Rs.5,50,000/-. Ext.4 was marked on admission during further examination-in-chief of Respondent No.1, who examined himself as P.W.1. Learned Counsel for the private Respondent, drawing attention of this Court to paras-17 & 23 of the deposition of P.W.1, further submitted that the said witness specifically stated about the species, age and number of fruit bearing trees standing on the acquired land, which remained
Legal Reasoning
unchallenged during his cross-examination by the Opposite Party No.1. P.W.1 also stated that he was getting about 150 coconuts per year from each of the coconut tree and was L.A.A. No.110 of 2019 Page 5 of 11 earning about a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the sale proceeding of the coconuts. 7.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Dash further submitted that so far as fruit bearing trees standing over the suit plot, P.W. No.1 specifically stated before the referral Court that in the report submitted by the Department Amin and Horticulture Department, the actual number of trees and their ages were suppressed. It was also deposed by the P.W. No.1 that the villagers of Belapadar and Rolasingh, whose lands are situated at a distance of about 100 meters from the land of the private Respondent, were awarded Rs.10,000/- per coconut tree for the same type and same age of trees, whereas the private Respondent was discriminated by paying less than Rs.500/- per tree for the same type and same age of coconut trees. Thus, it was claimed that the private Respondent is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.394/- per decimal for the acquired land so also Rs.10,000/- per tree considering the actual number of coconut trees and other trees and the said evidence of the P.W.1 remained unchallenged during his cross-examination. The referral Court should have enhanced the compensation for the trees more than what has been enhanced vide the impugned judgment. However, applying the L.A.A. No.110 of 2019 Page 6 of 11 principle of guess estimate, the referral Court has enhanced the compensation for acquisition of land so also the fruit bearing trees balancing the claim made by the private Respondent for enhancement vis-(cid:224)-vis the objection raised by the State-Appellant. 8. Learned Counsel for the private Respondent further submitted that the basis to enhance the compensation was the bench mark valuation marked as Ext.4, which was supplied to the Respondent No.1 in the year 2017 indicating the valuation of the acquired land to be Rs.5,50,000/- per acre. Still the referral Court reasonably enhanced the compensation towards land from Rs.3,57,500/- to Rs.4,00,000/- per acre. 9. Learned Counsel for the private Respondent further submitted that so far as gharabari kisam of land, it was reasonably further enhanced to Rs.26,000/- @ Rs.4,00,000/- per acre as per the evidence on record so also guess estimate. Similarly, the compensation for fruit bearing trees on the suit land was also enhanced reasonably instead of what had been claimed by the private Respondent- Claimant. Hence, there being no infirmity in the impugned L.A.A. No.110 of 2019 Page 7 of 11 judgment passed in L.A. Reference Case No. 51 of 2015, the appeal be dismissed directing the Appellant to implement the order passed by the referral Court within a stipulated period. 10. Admittedly, no rebuttal evidence was led by the State-Appellant before the referral Court (both oral as well as documentary) opposing to the prayer made for enhancement of compensation. 11. That apart, so far as evidence with regard to number of fruit bearing trees, their species and age, which was specifically stated by P.W.1 in his affidavit evidence, remained untouched during his cross-examination. Still the referral Court, instead of relying on the said admitted evidence on record with regard to valuation of the trees, applying the rule of guess estimate, enhanced the compensation from Rs.33,098/- to Rs.65,000/- for loss of 30 numbers of coconut trees,4 numbers of Fasi trees, 1 number of Mango tree, 2 numbers of Chakunda trees, 1 number of Lemon tree, 1 number of Custard Apple tree and 8 numbers of Teak trees. 12. On perusal of the L.C.R. it is further ascertained that the Sub-Registrar, Bolgarh vide letter dated 14.07.2017 L.A.A. No.110 of 2019 Page 8 of 11 intimated the Respondent No.1 that the Bench Mark Valuation of Plot No.1403 of Mouza-Dabardhua, which was acquired by the State, to be Rs.5,50,000/- per acre and the Court below, taking into consideration the said document marked as Ext.4 without any objection, enhanced the compensation in favour of the private Respondent to Rs.4,00,000/- per acre and ordered for further enhancement of the compensation of Rs.26,000/- for acquisition of land for an area of Ac.0.065 decimals and Rs.65,000/- towards market value of the firewood and productivities of the fruit bearing trees. The observation made by the Court below vide paragraph-10 of the impugned judgment, being relevant, is extracted below: “From the report on assessment made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and submitted to the same to the Collector for approval and the same finally approved by the Collector reveals that the valuation of the land per acre was fixed @ Rs.3,57,500/-(Rupees Three Lacs Fifty Seven Thousand Five Hundred) by the Authority was unreasonable. In comparison to the bench mark valuation made in the year 2014 and 2017 valuation of the Gharabari kisama land, it varies from Rs.3,94,000/-(Rupees Three Lacs Ninety Four Thousand) to (Rupees Five Lac Fifty Rs.5,50,000/- Thousand) for the period from 2014 to 2017. The Land Acquisition Officer has acquired the land of the petitioner in the year 2013 and paid compensation to the petitioner in the year 2014. So, on guess L.A.A. No.110 of 2019 Page 9 of 11 work, it is ascertained that the valuation of the gharabari land of the petitioner shall not be less than @ Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs) per acre. The Land Acquisition Officer without assigning any reason has acquired the land of the petitioner and arbitrarily awarded compensation Rs.3,57,000/-(Rupees Three Lacs Fifty Seven Thousand Five Hundred) per acre which is less than the valuation of the year 2014.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. In Special land Acquisition Officer Vs. Karigowda and others reported in AIR 2010 SC 2322, the Supreme Court held that the Court is entitled to apply some kind of reasonable guess work to balance the equities and fix just and fair market value in terms of the parameters specified under Section 23 of the Act, 1894. 14. It is found from the impugned judgment that, while applying the principles of guess estimate, the Court below has acted reasonably to enhance the compensation, as has been detailed above. 15. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment dated 30.09.2019 and the present Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed. L.A.A. No.110 of 2019 Page 10 of 11 17. In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, the State- Appellant is directed to implement the judgment dated 30.09.2019 passed in L.A. Reference Case No.51 of 2015 at the earliest, preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment. …….….…………………… S.K. MISHRA, J. High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 30th September, 2024 /Kanhu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KANHU BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 01-Oct-2024 16:34:54 L.A.A. No.110 of 2019 Page 11 of 11