Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Collector vs Om Prakash Sahu and Others

Pradip Mohanty, J.—This is an appeal u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') filed by the Land Acquisition. Collector, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna, challenging the order dated 23.12.1993 passed by the Subordinate Judge (as it then was), Nawapara, in M.J.C. No. 72 of 1993.

The brief facts of the case are that in pursuance of notification u/s 4(i) of the Act, Ac. 18.53 decimals of land appertaining, to different plots under Khata No. 16 of village Ainlajuba in the district of Kalahandi, which belonged to the respondents-claimants, were acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna for the purpose of construction of the Saipala Irrigation Project and compensation of Rs. 33,084.03 paise was given to the respondents-claimants which they received on protest as the award was very much low. Therefore, the reference was made to the learned Subordinate Judge, Nawapara, u/s 18 of the Act.

In order to prove their cases, the respondents-claimants have examined as many as two witnesses and proved documents including R.O.Rs., Exts. 2 and 6. The Land Acquisition Collector has examined himself as O.P.W. 1 and has proved Exts. A and B i.e. the copies of the publication in OG 1183 dated 18.7.1975 and the explanatory note for preparation of valuation land estimate of village Ainlajuba.

After considering the evidence on record, by his order dated 23.12.1993 the learned Subordinate Judge, Nawapara, allowed the claim of the respondents and awarded higher compensation of Rs. 1,52,951.10 paise. The trial court also directed the Land Acquisition Collector to pay the amount with interest at the rate of 9% within two months and further directed to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum after expiry of the stipulated period, and also the statutory benefits as provided u/s 23(1-A) of the Act.

In course of hearing, Mr. Patnaik, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State, relying on Ext. Vehemently urged that the Land Acquisition Collector had correctly fixed the market value and the learned Civil Judge is not in conformity with the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act. He also contended that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the prevalent market price which the Land Acquisition Collector had fixed. He, therefore, submits that the judgment of the Court below may be set aside.

Mr. Das, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge.

This Court perused the evidence on record. Exts. 2 and 6 are the R.O.Rs. The acquired lands were recorded in favour of the respondents. P.W. 1 is the respondent No. 1 and P.W. 2 is his co-villager. On going through the evidence this Court finds that, P.W. 1 has stated that the lands were acquired in 1973. Out of the acquired lands, 5 acres were of Bahal variety, Ac.11.75 decimals were of Act lands and Ac.1.92 decimals of Berna lands. He was getting 20 to 22 quintals of paddy per acre from Bahala lands and 12 to 14 quintals of paddy per acre from the Berna lands. He was also producing 5 quintals of mung, 7 quintals of Biri, 10 quintals of Rahad, 10 quintals of til and 8 to 10 quintals of horse gram from the Aat lands. He has stated that the potential value of his lands was much more in comparison to the other lands as there was irrigation facilities for the said acquired lands. He states that there were also 46 numbers of fruit bearing and non-fruit bearing trees on the acquired lands and he was getting net profit of Rs. 40,000/-from the produce of the trees every year. He also emphatically stated that there was no sale statistics available in his village during the time of acquisition of the lands but the Land Acquisition Collector had taken into consideration the statistics given by the Statistical Officer, Kalahandi which was meant for the entire district, but it was not relevant for his lands because of average growth of crops. P.W. 2, a co-villager supports the evidence of the respondent, Except for some minor discrepancies, nothing substantial has been brought out in the cross-examination so as to disbelieve the evidence of the P.Ws.

The L.A. Collector has examined himself as O.P.W. 1. He has given the detailed description of the acquired lands. Strangely enough, in cross-examination he has admitted not to have filed the statistical reports of the year 1972-73 and the statistical rate of paddy of the Supply Department for the said year. Though he has referred to the letter of the Statistical Officer, Kalahandi, but he has not produced it before the Court nor the same has been marked as Ext. He has admitted in his cross-examination that on his query the villagers stated before him that there were a number of trees standing on the acquired lands. In view of clear admission of the L.A. Collector in his cross-examination, this Court is reluctant to accept the valuation fixed for the acquired lands by the L.A. Collector.

During hearing, learned Addl. Standing Counsel strongly relied on Ext. B. Ext. B is a true copy of the original explanatory note for preparation of valuation of land. It has not been proved properly. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on Ext. B. Moreover the lands were acquired in 1973, as far as 30 years back and in the interregnum cost of every thing has sky rocketed. The Land Acquisition Collector having failed to prove the market value of the acquired lands through cogent evidence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge in the impugned judgment and the same is affirmed.

For the reasons stated above, the first appeal fails and is hereby dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to cost.