Land Acquisition Collector, Cuttack vs Bholanath Acharya

P.K. Tripathy, J.—This appeal is directed against the award dated 5-3-1983 passed by learned Subordinate Judge. Jagatsinghpur in L. A. Case No. 17 of 1982, a proceeding registered on receipt of a reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the ''Act'').

The petitioner/Respondent''s land to the extent Ac. 0.03 in village Gobindamohanty, P.S, Tirtol in the district of Cuttack (undivided) having been acquired for the project Gopalpur Distributory No. 12-E of Tarpur Canal as per Gazette Notification No. 1762 of 1977 under settion 4(1) of the Act and a sum of Rs. 207.11 being determined as the compensation amount the petitioner/respondent raised objection relating to adequacy of the quantum of compensation which resulated in a reference u/s 18 of the Act in the aforesaid manner. The petitioner advanced the contention that at the time of acquisition of the land the adjacent land was being sold at Rs. 700 to Rs. 800/-per guntb, the acquired land is better than that land being Sarada dofasali and irrigated land and there are market, High School, ME. School, Hospital and Stockman''s centre near the acquired land. It is the further contention of the petitioner that one Bholanath Acharya purchased Ac. 0.06 decimals of land from one Sodari Bewa for a consideration of Rs. 1200/- on 7-11-1977 vide sale deed Ext. 1.

In the Court of the Subjudge, p. ws. 1 and 2 were examined for the petitioner and he relied on the sale deed Ext. 1 proved by p. w. 2 as purchaser. The opposite party/appellant examined a Senior Assistant from his office as the solitary witness and relied upon the valuation report marked Ext. A. Learned Subjudge, on assessment of evidence, did not accept the valuation asserted by the appellant on the grounds that no evidence was led and no proof was made that the valuation determined under Ext. A was on the basis of consideration of contemporary registered sale deeds of similar variety of land in the same village. Learned Subjudge relied upon the unchallenged evidence of p. ws. 1 and 2 and the value of similar type of land which was paid on 7-11-1977 under Ext. 1 and determined the value per acre of land at Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousands) and accordingly passed award determining the compensation at Rs. 690/- = (Rupees six hundreds and ninety) and after deducting the amount which the respondent has already received directed for payment of Rs. 487.14 paise with simple interest of 6% per annum from the date of taking possession till thedate of payment of compensation.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that learned Subjudge without properly appreciating the evidence and in the absence of any proof of existence of higher valuation through any accepted statistics has arbitrarily fixed a higher valuation in the aforesaid manner on the basis of Ext. 1 and therefore the impugned award be set aside and determination of valuation made in that respect by the appellant in the working sheet (Ext. A) be accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioner/ respondent advanced the argument supporting the impugned award.

It appears from the impugned award that the learned Subjudge has made a due and proper verification of Ext. A as well as Ext. 1 in addition to the oral evidence adduced by the parties. The reason assigned by him about situation of the land and its value which is clearly indicated in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the award is found to be reasonable. A reiteration of the said reasonings is not necessary. Apart from that o. p. w. 1 stated in his evidence that there is no note of the sale deed which the Land Acquisition Officer verified while preparing Ext. A. He does not remember whose sale deeds were verified by the Land Acquisition Collector. Therefore, the assessment of valuation made by the appellant was whimsical and arbitrary whereas the valuation assessed by the learned Subjugde is reasonable and acceptable. Under such circumstance, there is nothing to interfere with the award.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed on contest. However, parties are directed to bear their respective costs of itigation so far as this litigation is concerned.

Appeal dismissed.