Land Acquisition Officer, Ganjam vs Ch. Parsuram and Others

S.C. Mohapatra, J.—This is an appeal u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') by the Land Acquisition Officer. Claimants have also preferred a cross-objection.

Notification under Sections 4(1) and 17(4) of the Act were published on 12-4-1972 for compulsory acquisition of 20 acres 0 1/2 decimals of homestead land of the respondents in Revenue village Goilundi within Berhampur Municipality for construction of office building and staff quarters for the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Berhampur. Possession of the land was taken immediately. Collector awarded compensation of Rs. 1,44,537.80 paise computing the market value of 1 acre 99 decimals of land at the rate of Rs. 63,158/-per acre. Receiving the compensation awarded under protest, claimants objected to the measurement of the area acquired as well as demanded compensation at higher rate of market value, for which reference u/s 18 of the Act was made to the Court. Trial Court held the area acquired to be 2 acres 0 1/2 decimals and determined the market value at Rs. 1 lakh per acre. Appellant is aggrieved by the area determined by the trial Court to have been acquired. Respondents are aggrieved by determination of the market value at Rs. 1 lakh per acre and has claimed compensation at the rate of 1 lakh 50 thousand rupees per acre in their cross-objection reducing their claim at the rate of 2 lakhs 50 thousand rupees per acre before the Land Acquisition Officer.

In Notification u/s 4(1) of the Act an area of 2 acres 1/2 decimals of land of the respondents including 38 1/2 decimals in Survey No. 71 (2) was proposed to be acquired. The same area was also reflected in the notices under Ss. 9 and 19 of the Act. In the award u/s 11 of the Act, however, the area acquired in Survey No. 71 (2) was stated to be 37 decimals. No acceptable oral evidence of a competent witness who measured the area was adduced on behalf of the appellant. In this background, finding of the trial Court on the basis of various earlier notifications and Notices and evidence of P.W. 13 on behalf of the claimants, that the area acquired from out of that survey number is 38 1/2 decimals is not incorrect and thus the total area acquired was 2 acres 1/2 decimals and not 1 acre 99 decimals. Appeal has no merit.

Cross-objection of the respondents relates to the rate of market value of the land acquired. Collector offered Rs.63,158/- per acre. Respondents claimed higher compensation at the rate of 2 lakhs 50 thousand rupees per acre. Now in the cross-objection the rate claimed has been reduced to 1 lakh 50 thousand rupees per acre.

Claimants have examined 13 witnesses to prove that they are entitled to higher compensation. Various sale deeds have been also proved in the case to prove the market value. Evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 9 relates to those sale deeds. Trial Court did not accept this material on the short ground that the transactions in those sale deeds relate to lands in different areas which are not similar in advantages to the lands acquired. Besides, the sale deeds Exts. 2 to 6 being later to the Notification u/s 4(1) of the Act were not accepted. Added to the same, it can safely be stated that the transactions in those sale deeds were in respect of the small areas. In Smt. Kausalya Devi Bogra and Others Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and Another, it was observed (at p. 898 of AIR) :

".....Where large tracts are acquired, the transaction in respect of smaller properties, do not offer a proper guide line. Therefore, the valuation in transactions in regard to smaller property is not taken as a real basis for determining the compensation for large tract of property."

Similar is the principle in the decisions reported in Padma Uppal and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, and Prithvi Raj Taneja (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, .

Evidence of P.Ws. 10 to 13 and the awards proved and marked as Exts. 14 to 16, are material for the purpose of determining the market value of the acquired land. P.W. 10 is a retired Engineer who made a spot visit and stated that the lands are suitable for house site and are in a better situation having better advantages than those others in the locality. His report has been marked as Exhibit 9. This witness, however, has not given any acceptable opinion as expert relating to the market value of the land. The land acquired was proposed by the claimants to be divided to smaller plots and sold as revealed from Exhibit 10. In the objection, claiming higher compensation, it was stated that price of each plot was Rs. 6,000/-. P.Ws. 11 and 12 who are intending purchasers of one plot each and claimed to have advanced money for the same stated that they advanced some amounts agreeing to purchase at Rs. 9,000/- per plot. Advance is, however, claimed to have been returned to them since the land was acquired. No document in support of the agreement or advance of money was filed. Trial Court rightly did not rely upon evidence of P.Ws. 11 and 12. The statement, that each plot was decided to be sold at Rs. 6,000/- as stated in the objection was explained by P.W. 13 to be a typed mistake and it ought to have been Rs. 9,000/-. The draft from out of which the objection was typed was not proved and the typist who committed typing error has not been examined. Such explanation cannot be accepted even to accept the rate at Rs. 6,000/-per plot in absence of any acceptable corroborative evidence.

Other materials available in the record are the various awards which can be accepted since they related to acquisition of large tracts of land as in this case. They are situated either in revenue village Goilundi or the adjacent revenue village Ankoli which is within Berhampur Municipality. Some of the lands acquired under the award were by the side of the National Highway. In this ease, however, the acquired land is about 300 away from the National Highway and road is to be constructed for going upon the acquired land.

Exhibit 16 is an award in respect of the compulsory acquisition of A1.93 decimals of land in village Goilundi for Posts & Telegraphs Colony in or about the year 1970. Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 75,000/- per acre. There is no evidence whether enhanced compensation was claimed. It is clear from the latter Ext. 11 dt. 12-6-1971 that in respect of the land in question Deputy Director on the basis of the consultation with the Collector had offered a rate of Rs. 1 lakh per acre to the claimants. These two documents clearly indicate that the award of the Collector at the rate of Rs. 63,158/- per acre is not correct and claimants are justified to claim higher compensation.

P.W. 7 has stated that in the year 1969, some of his lands were acquired and compensation at the rate of Rs. 1 lakh per acre was given though he claimed at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/-per acre. Ext. 14 is an award in respect of acquisition of A.2.1 decimals of land of P.W. 7 in revenue village Ankoli in 1969 where compensation at the rate of Rs. 1 lakh per acre was paid u/s 11 of the Act. In course of hearing, decision of this Court in First Appeal No. 217 of 1972 decided on 29-9-1983 (Simanchal Panda v. The Land Acquisition Officer, Ganjam) was produced. In that case A.1.62 decimals of the lands were acquired on the basis of Notification u/s 4(1) of the Act dt. 23-2-1968. This Court affirms the awarded rate of market value per acre at Rs. 1 lakh. Ext. 15 is an award of the Court in a reference u/s 18 of the Act in respect of A.2.67 decimals of land in village Ankoli belonging to Sri Ganesh Mohapatra, a retired Sub-Judge. Compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,25,000/- per acre was awarded by the Court. In course of hearing, another decision of this Court in First Appeal No. 32 of 1979 decided on 15-9-1987 (Simanchal Panda (after him) Labanglata Pandiani v. Land Acquisition Officer, Ganjam) was referred to. In that case, A. 1.18 decimals of land in village Ankoli were acquired as per Notification u/s 4(1) of the Act dt. 10-10-1974.

This Court determined the compensation at Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre. Thus, it is seen that between 1968 and 1974 compulsory acquisition of large tracts of land for building purposes was made at the rates between Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 1,25,000/-per acre.

Mr. R. K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon two decisions of this Court reported in (1972) 38 CLR I.T 1157 (Collector of Cuttack v. Brundaban Chandra Sahu) and State of Orissa Vs. Dunda Oram and Others, to urge that the claimants arc entitled to potential values for the land. The awards and the decisions referred to above have taken into consideration the potential values of the land also.

In view of the discussions above, it is clear that, there is no consistent market value of the land acquired between 1968 and 1974. It is, however, clear that the rate is between Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 1,25,000/-per acre. In such circumstances, a reasonable guess work is to be made which is permissible as has been held in Raja Srivalgoti Sarvagna Kumara Krishna Yachandra Bachadurvaru Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore and Others, . If the rate of Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre in First Appeal No. 32 of 1979 (supra) is accepted as the basis, some reduction is to be made for determining the market value of the land in the present case since there is evidence that price of land is increasing day-by-day. If the rate at Rs. 1 lakh per acre for acquisition in the year 1969 in First Appeal No. 217 of 1972 is accepted the rate would be higher than Rs. 1 lakh. Rate at Rs 1,25,000/- per acre in Ext. 15 for acquisition on the basis of Notification u/s 4(1) of the Act dt. 23-2-1968 ought not to be accepted since the decisions of this Court are of greater weight than the rate awarded in Ext. 15. In the circumstances, with the varying rates available, a reasonable guess work is to be made and in the absence of materials that between 1972 and 1974 there was considerable increase in the price of land in the area, the rate of Rs. 1,20,000/- determined in First Appeal No. 32 of 1979 for acquisition of 1974 is reasonable to be accepted for this case.

It is not disputed that possession of the land was taken on the date of Notification u/s 4(1) of the Act. P. W. 13 has stated so in his evidence. Accordingly, claimants are not entitled to any compensation u/s 23(1-A) of the Act. They are, however, entitled to compensation u/s 23(2) of the Act as amended in 1984 and interest u/s 28 of the Act as amended by Amending Act 68 of 1984.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and cross-appeal is allowed. No costs.

Smt. A.K. Padhi, J.

I agree.