The Collector, Cuttack vs Gopal Chandra Misra

S.C. Mohapatra, J.—This is an appeal u/s 53 of the Land Acquisition Act.

By notification dt. 19-7-1968, an area of 22 decimals of land of the claimant-respondent out of his total land of 91 decimals was acquired for the purpose of Cuttack-Paradeep Rail Link along with the lands of three other claimants, who were using the land acquired as private passage to the main road. Lands of several other claimants were also acquired. Petitioner claimed higher compensation on account of his disadvantage of using the other land.

Relying upon an earlier decision in L. A. Case No. 66 of 1971 trial court has fixed the market value at Rs. 100/- per decimal. Besides awarding compensation on the market value of 22 decimals, trial court has also awarded equal amount as compensation for inconvenience to be caused on account of lack of passage to the remaining portion of the land.

Decision in Misc. Case No. 66 of 1971 was subject-matter of First Appeal No. 193 of 1973. In respect of some other area nearabout acquired for the same project First Appeal No. 26of 1976 was filed. In these two appeals, i.e. F.A. No. 193 of 1973 decided on 23-9-1983 and F.A. No. 26 of 1976 decided on 27-9-1977, the market value was fixed at Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre. The learned Advocate General has brought to my notice another decision of this Court in First Appeal No. 105 of 1974 decided on 27-10-1983 where the lands were acquired for the same purpose in the same area and the market value was fixed at Rs. 90,000/-per acre. Learned Advocate General submitted that the difference in rate is on account of availability of the use of the main road. There is no evidence to this effect. Accordingly, the order is to be set aside and the matter is to be remitted back to the trial court to find out the location of the land which is acquired and compare the same with the land in question. The rate would be fixed afresh taking the rate at Rs. 1,00,000/-per acre or Rs. 90,000/- per acre, which would depend on the finding.

The learned Advocate General further submitted that since the land acquired was a passage it cannot have the same potential value as other lands to be used for building purposes. Value of the land as a passage is to be determined and not as a building site, It is to be determined if a private passage can be carved out from the balance land left out. In case such passage can be carved out, claimant would be entitled to the market value as of the land used for building purposes since the claimant in effect would be deprived of a portion of the homestead to be used as passage. The deterioration or inconvenience caused on account of taking away a portion of the land is to be determined and compensation for such inconvenience is to be determined. In case it is found by the trial court that the entire land left out would be a total loss to the claimant as homestead, the compensation at the rate fixed for the other land and the value of the land for purpose other than homestead is to be determined and the difference in the value would be the loss to the claimant. This is to be compensated.

The trial court shall dispose of the matter within one month from the date of appearance of the parties. Both parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 7th. Dec. 1987, on which date, trial court shall fix a date for adducing further evidence. I may make it clear that the claimant shall be entitled to the solatium and interest as provided under Central Act 68 of 1984.

In the result, the appeal is allowed, the award is set aside and the matter is remitted back for re-consideration by the trial court. No costs. Send back the records at once.