Collector of Cuttack vs Brundaban Chandra Sahu

S.K. Ray, A.C.J.

This appeal is by the Collector of Cuttack. It is from the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack in a reference made to him u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by which the amount of compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Collector has been enhanced.

The extent of land which was the subject matter of the land acquisition proceeding is 1.91 acres the Collector awarded total compensation of Rs. 458/- for the entire acquired land computed at the rate of Rs. 200/- per Bore for sarad and Rs. 200/- per acre for fallow land, plus Rs. 68.70 towards the additional compensation in favour of the claimant who is Respondent in the appeal.

The Petitioner claimed higher compensation at the rate of Rs. 5000/. per acre. Since his claim was rejected by the Collector, be filed an application before the latter to make a reference to the Subordinate Judge u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Notification made u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 15-12-1954 and was published in the Gazette on 15.11.1955. It is incontrovertible that the compensation to be awarded would he the market price of the land on the date of the notification, that is to say, the prevailing market price as on 15-12-1954. The claimant examined one witness (p.w. 1) before the Subordinate Judge in support of his enhanced claim of compensation. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the Collector except relying upon the materials supplied by the Collector while making the reference u/s 18. That shows the basis of calculation of the Land Acquisition Collector, which comprises of the sale rates prevailing in the vicinity on the date of publication of the notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, that is to say, on the basis of the market rate prevailing on 15.11.1955.

It is also the well established position in law that when a reference is made by a claimant, the onus is upon him to prove by evidence that the market value as determined by the Land Acquisition Collector is not correct in other words, the burden of proving that the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector is inadequate lies upon the claimant. The claimants are in the position, of Plaintiffs in an ordinary suit and if, like the Plaintiffs, they do not lead any relevant and admissible evidence in support of their claim they must fail. Vide Dhusabhai Polabhai and Others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad, , Kompalli Nogeswara Rao and Ors. v. Special Deputy Collector. Land Acquisition Papatla AIR 1959 A.P, Naresh Chandra Bose Vs. State of West Bengal and Others, .

p.w. 1 does not being to the village in which the acquired lands are situated. His own lands he at a distance of 1/4th mile from the acquired lands. He speaks of the market value of the and as being Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per acre in the year 1961. According to him, the acquired lands have the potentiality of homestead sites. The market price of homestead and agricultural land spoken to by him relate to the year 1961. The Petitioner has not himself come to the box to testify that he intended to or was about to convert the acquired land into homestead sites''s. No factual basis has been brought on record on behalf of the claimant in corroboration of the opinion of p.w. 1 as to the market value or potential value of the acquired lands. That apart, the potential value is generally included in the market price of the land, and separate valuation of the potentiality of the acquired lands by p.w. 1 cannot obviously be correct. Apart from intrinsic demerit of the testimony of p.w. 1, the greatest objection to his evidence is that the market price deposed to by him relates to 1961, about 6 or 7 years after the date of notification of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, and, as such is quite irrelevant. The learned Advocate General, therefore, rightly contends that this is a case of no evidence, because no evidence as to market price of the lands in question prevailing on the date of Section 4 notification has been tendered before the Subordinate Judge. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the learned Subordinate Judge committed grievious error in accepting this evidence of p.w. 1 and enhancing the compensation amount determined by the Land Acquisition Coiler for. He should have held that the claimant has failed to discharge his initial onus and dismissed the claim for higher compensation. Having regard to the legal position enunciated above, the evidence of p.w. 1 is quite irrelevant and cannot be accepted at an. The Respondent must be held to have failed to discharge his onus. In the circumstances, we set aside the judgment and decree of tile learned Subordinate Judge and uphold the amount of compensation determined by the Collector.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The Appellant is entitled to cost of this Court.

K.B. Panda, J.

I agree.