Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Akura Gouda

Pradip Mohanty, J.—This is an appeal u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act filed by the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer, Dhenkanal, being aggrieved by the order dated 25.1.1995 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Talcher, in Land Acquisition Misc. Case No. 27 of 1988. The respondent has preferred a cross-objection to enhance the award amount.

The facts of the case, in brief, leading to the first appeal are as follows :

Admittedly, pursuant to notification dated 24.5.1982 u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, the "Act"), the Government of Orissa acquired the homestead land measuring Ac. 0.08 decimals, appertaining to Khata No. 118, Plot No. 1346 of mouja Padiabhanga in the district of Dhenkanal which belonged to the claimant-respondent, for construction of National High Way No. 23. The said acquired land has a building standing thereon. The claimant-respondent received the compensation with objection. Hence the Land Acquisition Officer made a reference u/s 18 of the Act to the Court below for adjudication.

Before the learned trial Judge, the claimant-respondent examined two witnesses including himself and exhibited two documents (Exts. 1 and 2). The appellant-Land Acquisition Officer, though produced some documents, but has not examined a single witness on his behalf.

Considering the evidence and the documents on record, the learned trial Judge awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the acquired land and Rs. 40,000/- for the structure standing thereon with at statutory benefits as envisaged under the Act.

It is pertinent to note that this matter was once before this Court in F.A. No. 107 of 1990. By order dated 15.7.1993 this Court set aside the earlier award and remitted the reference back to the trial Court for determination of the market value after giving opportunity to both parties to adduce further evidence. Accordingly, after remand, the learned trial Judge has redetermined the award by the impugned order.

During hearing of the appeal, Mr. S. Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel, submitted that the Court below has failed to appreciate the scope and ambit of Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act for determination of the market value at the relevant time. He also argued that the award is exorbitant and, thus, prayed for setting aside the same.

Mr. J.R. Das, learned counselor the Claimant-Respondent, on the other hand, contended that the Court below did not give the award on its proper perspective, inasmuch as fixation of compensation for the acquired land and the building standing thereon by the learned trial Judge is too low and, accordingly, he claimed for higher compensation.

This Court, on an appraisal of the evidence on record, found that the claimant-respondent in his evidence has stated that the case land was acquired for construction of Talcher-Banarapal road. The said land was a homestead land with three pucca rooms, two thatched rooms, compound wall and cow-shed etc. The land was acquired in 1982 and at that time, according to the claimant, the rate of land was Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 26,000/- per Gunth in the locality. The acquired land adjoins the National High Way and accordingly he claims Rs. 80,000/- for the acquired land. In support of his evidence he proves the certified copy of the sale-deed, Ext 1. He also proves the estimate of the building as Ext. 2. P.W. 2 is a co-villager and he supports the evidence of the claimant respondent in all material particulars.

The appellant-Land Acquisition Officer, although exhibited some copies of the assessment report and true copy of valuation of the house etc., has failed to substantiate the same by adducing evidence. He has also failed to discredit the testimony of the witnesses examined by the claimant. Except for some bald suggestions, nothing material has been brought out in the cross-examination of the witnesses so as to discard their evidence. In the absence of any evidence, either oral or documentary adduced by the appellant, this Court is not inclined to disturb the finding arrived at by the learned trial Judge.

During hearing, Mr. J.R. Das vehemently argued that the compensation awarded is too low and he claimed for higher compensation. This Court, on consideration of the evidence on record and the findings arrived at by the learned trial Judge, is of the opinion that quantum of compensation awarded by the learned trial Judge is rather a bit inadequate. While confirming the compensation awarded for the acquired land, this Court directs enhancement of compensation to the tune of another Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) for the structure standing on the acquired land.

There is no other point of law agitated by the learned Addl. Standing Counsel. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the learned trial Judge.

The land was acquired in 1982 for the public purpose. For more than twenty years, the claimant is awaiting receipt of compensation for his homestead. In the mean-time costs have sky-rocketed and it will not be just and proper to deprive the claimant from receiving his lawful compensation from the Government within the scheduled time. This Court, therefore, directs that, the appellant shall pay the enhanced compensation to the claimant with all statutory benefits within six months from the date of the judgment.

In the result, the first appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed and the cross-objection is partly allowed. No cost.

The L.C.R. be sent back forthwith.