Land Acquisition Officer vs Trilochan Sahu

Pradip Mohanty, J.—This appeal is one u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') filed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Dhenkanal, challenging the order dated 16.7.1993 passed by the Subordinate Judge (as it then was), Dhenkanal, in L. A. Misc. Case No. 43 of 1990.

During pendency of the appeal, the claimant-respondent has filed a cross-appeal under Order 41, Rule 22, CPC read with Section 54 of the Act challenging the above order of the court below. Therefore, this judgment governs the first appeal as well as the cross-appeal.

The brief facts of the case are that, admittedly, pursuant to Notification u/s 4(i) of the Act, Government acquired Ac. 0.44 decimals of land situated at mouza Nimabahali, P.S. Balami pertaining to Khata No. 126 and plot Nos. 958/1, 935/1 and 1148/1, which stood recorded in the name of the claimant-respondent, for construction of National High Way No. 42. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the valuation of the case lands at Rs. 4,167/- per acre for Sarada-II Kissam and Rs. 2000/- per acre for Patita Kissam of lands and accordingly he paid the compensation which the claimant-respondent received on protest. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer referred the case to the court below u/s 18 of the Act.

The court below, upon going through the materials on record, fixed the market value of the lands at Rs. 20,000/- per acre, the additional market value at the rate of 12% from the date of notification till acquisition and solatium of 30% and interest as provided u/s 34 of the Act. Against the said order the Land Acquisition Officer preferred First Appeal Nos. 278 and 284 of 1991 arising out of L. A. Misc. Case No. 41 and 43 of 1990. This Court by judgment dated 1.7.1992 directed remand of the case to the court below for fresh disposal by giving opportunities to both parties to adduce further evidence.

After remand, the court below, upon considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, fixed the market value of Sarada - II Kissam of lands at Rs. 20,000/- per acre and Rs. 10,000/- per acre for Patita Kissam lands with other statutory benefits. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

During hearing of the appeal, Mr. Sangram Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel, urged that the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer had correctly fixed the market value taking into consideration the market price of the lands, and the order of the learned Subordinate Judge awarding higher compensation is not in conformity with the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act.

Mr. R. N. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, contended that the valuation of the court below was still too low and referring to the cross-appeal, he vehemently submitted for higher compensation.

The only point for decision in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation fixed by the court below is correct.

During hearing this Court perused the evidence on record as well as the earlier order passed in F.A. Nos. 278 and 284 of 1991 directing remand of the case to the court below for fresh disposal. On going through the evidence it is found that P.W. 1, the son of claimant Srinibas Sahu states that the value of Sarad Kissam of lands at the mouza would be Rs. 800/- per Gunth and the value for Patita Kissam of land would be Rs. 500/- to Rs. 600/-per Gunth. He also states that the case lands are of better potentiality than the lands under Exts. 1 and 2. P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 also support the oral evidence of P.W. 1. The appellant has not examined a single witness on its side nor has produced a scrap of paper supporting the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Nothing has also been elicited in the cross-examination of the witnesses to disbelieve their evidence. Therefore, this Court holds that the court below, taking into consideration the evidence on record, has correctly fixed the market value at Rs. 20,000/- per acre for the Sarada-II Kissam and at Rs. 10,000/- per acre for the Patita Kissam lands. While sitting on appeal this Court is reluctant to interfere with the impugned order. Moreover, the lands were acquired as far back as in 1978. In the meanwhile, twenty-five years have passed and the cost of everything has gone sky rocketed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order of the court below is affirmed.

For the reasons stated above, the first appeal as well as the cross-appeal is hereby dismissed. No cost.