State Of Orissa, represented by Land Acquisition Officer, Zone-II, Deogarh vs Achuytananda Sahu & Others

S.K. Mishra, J.

This Appeal has been preferred by the State-Appellant, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 03.07.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Ref. No.120 of 2003, vide which the Court below allowed the application of the present Respondents for enhancement of compensation and ordered that the Respondents are jointly entitled to compensation of Rs.43,000/- for the land @ Rs.20,000/- per acre and Rs.64,700/- for various kinds of trees over the land measuring Ac. 2.15 decimals along with all statutory benefits in terms of sections 23(1-A), 23 (2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, shortly “the Act, 1894”.

The brief facts, which led to filing of this Appeal are that an area of Ac.2.15 decimals of agricultural land appertaining to 14 plots under Khata No.8, situated in village Talabahali under Barkote Police Station in the district of Deogarh belonging to the present Respondents was acquired by the State Government vide Notification dated 27.08.1983 in terms of section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 followed by the declaration dated 26.03.1984 for construction of Rengali Dam Project for which an enquiry under section 11 of the Act, 1894 was conducted.

After taking into consideration all contemporaneous materials pertaining to the acquired land and its vicinity as well as the valuation of the trees determined by the concerned Divisional Forest Officer, under the reference petition, the compensation payable for the acquired land was determined at Rs.11,500.50 paise. In addition to same, the compensation for the trees standing on the acquired land was fixed at Rs.2,389.32 paise. In total, the Respondents received Rs.22,789.52 paise towards compensation under protest where after, in a reference under section 18 of the Act, 1894, which was registered as L.A. Ref. No.120 of 2003, the referral Court vide judgment dated 03.07.2007, relying on an allegedly un-contemporaneous earlier award pertaining to different lands and further by resorting to unreasonable inferences, enhanced the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.20,000/- per acre. Apart from the same, Rs.64,700/- has been granted to the present Respondents (Claimants before the Court below) for the trees, along with other statutory benefits available under the Act, 1894 as detailed above. Hence, this Appeal.

This Appeal has been preferred basically on the ground that the Court below ought to have examined the validity of the award determined by the Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O.) within the parameters and mandatory guidelines stipulated under sections 23 and 24 of the Act, 1894 and while passing the impugned judgment, the Court below acted in excess of its jurisdiction and fixed the market value of the acquired land exorbitantly on the basis of an un-contemporaneous earlier award passed in the case of State of Orissa-Vrs.-Nishakar Pradhan, reported in 2000 (II) OLR 571 as well as resorting to unreasonable inference in assessing the compensation amount for the trees and land, which are against the weight of evidence on record. A further ground has been taken in the Appeal that there is no clinching piece of evidence on record from which the Court below could be in a position to compare the nature, situation, advantages and potentiality of the acquired land with the lands covered under the earlier award passed in the case of Nishakar Pradhan (supra). The Respondents (Claimants before the Court below) also failed to establish the factum of similarity of the acquired land vis-à-vis the lands covered in the case of Nishakar Pradhan (supra), by adducing any cogent documentary evidence to the said effect. Still the Court below, relying on the judgment of Nishakar Pradhan (supra), enhanced the compensation amount.

Mr. Panigrahi, learned A.S.C. for the State-Appellant, reiterating the grounds taken in the Memorandum of Appeal, submitted that the referral Court resorted to unreasonable surmises and passed the impugned judgment relying on the unsupported statements of P.Ws. 1 and 2, by brushing aside the material assessment of the valuation of the trees by the Forest Officer and enhanced the market value of the acquired land so also trees exorbitantly. The same being not in consonance with the settled legal position, the impugned award is liable to be set aside.

In response to the submissions made by the learned A.S.C. for the State-Appellant, Mr. Sahoo, learned Counsel for the private Respondents, relying on the judgment of this Court reported in 2000 (II) OLR 571 (State of Orissa v. Nishakar Pradhan) and drawing attention of this Court to Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said judgment submitted, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and the Court below not only relying on the said judgment of this Court in Nishakar Pradhan (supra) but also relying on the evidence on record has passed a reasoned order, which needs no interference and the Appeal preferred by the State deserves to be dismissed.

As is revealed from the L.C.R., the present Respondent No.1 was examined as P.W.1. One Arakhita Pradhan was examined as P.W. No.2. During cross examination of said witnesses, most of the statements of P.Ws. remained unchallenged. The State-Appellant (Opposite Party before the Court below) neither led any evidence by examining any witness nor exhibited any document to oppose the claim of the present Respondents to enhance the compensation, as claimed in the petition/objection under section 18 of the Act, 1894. The Court below, referring to the judgment of this Court in Nishakar Pradhan (supra), held that the valuation of the land of the present Respondents should be @ Rs.20,000/- per acre. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said judgment, which are relevant for adjudication of the present lis, are extracted below:

“ 4. My attention is drawn to the material part of the judgment and I find that in fact no reason has been given by the Court in fixing the value of one lakh as compensation. I accept the contention of Mrs. Jena that in fact nothing has been given out in the impugned order as to how the Court came to the finding that the compensation amount should be fixed at rupees one lakh.

Mr. P. Rout, learned counsel for the respondent files xerox copies of the three Land Acquisition Cases i.e.25 of 1991, 87 of 1991 and 9 of 1992 and submits that in all these cases the lands were the subject matters of the same notification and acquired for the same Rengali Dam Project and compensation amount then assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector was subsequently enhanced by the Subordinate Judge in their respective judgments, certified copy of which are filed herewith. On the basis of the documents, argument is advanced that once the Government has accepted value of the same type of land at Rs.20,000/- per acre there is no reason for the present claimant to be deprived of the compensation amount to be calculated at that rate. Mr. Rout has drawn attention of this Court to the grounds of the cross-appeal filed in this case.

Having heard Mrs. Jena and Mr. Rout, learned Counsel for the respective parties and going through the impugned judgment, I find in fact the Court has not given reason as to how he fixed the valuation of rupees one lakh for the lands in question. But the very fact that in all the above cases, the Government have not preferred any appeal challenging the enhanced award in those cases and further the amount of compensation has been paid at the enhanced rate to the claimants, I do not find there is any justification to refuel to give the same relief to the present, petitioner-appellant in this case.

I may point out, Mrs. Jena has failed to place any material before me, nor she has been in a position to explain if the valuation at the rate or Rs.20,000/- per acre will be extremely unreasonable.”

(Emphasis supplied)

As is further revealed from the L.C.R., apart from relying on the judgment of this Court in Nishakar Pradhan (supra), the present Respondents led evidence to substantiate their claim for enhancement of the compensation amount @ Rs. 25,000/- per acre by leading evidence to the effect that the lands acquired by the State were having potential irrigation facility providing good yields to them making huge profit. However, the L.A.O. did not take into

consideration about the potentiality of the said land while determining the compensation payable to the present Respondents. Similarly, evidence was also led before the Court below to the effect that the valuation determined for the trees is also not proper and it was determined in an arbitrary manner by the L.A.O.

In view of the discussions made above so also evidence on record and judgment of this Court in Nishakar Pradhan (supra), this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the judgment passed by the Court below in L.A. Ref. No.120 of 2003. Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed.

In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, the State Appellant is directed to act in terms of the judgment dated 03.07.2007 passed in L.A. Ref. No.120 of 2003 within eight weeks hence.

..………………………….