The Land Acquisition Zone Officer, Talcher-Sambalpur Rail Link vs Dayanidhi Pradhan and Others

A.K. Parichha, J.—This is an appeal by the State against the award passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Angul in L.A. Misc. Case No. 131 of 1993 answering the reference u/s 18 of the L.A. Act made by Land Acquisition Zone Officer, Talcher-Sambalpur-Rail Link.

Ac. 2.34 dec. of land appertaining to Khata No. 35 (B) and 35 (D) of Villager-Thelkonali belonging to the claimant-Respondent was acquired for Talcher-Sambalpur Rail Link Project vide declaration No. 72043 dated 26.11.1989. The Land Acquisition Zone Officer assessed the compensation for the above noted lands and the trees standing thereon at Rs. 1,39,280/ -. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation the claimants demanded reference of the matter to the Civil Court and that is how the matter came up in the above noted L.A. Misc. Case before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Angul.

The claimants examined one witness and produced water tax receipts, Exts.1 to 13, notice in Certificate cases, Exts.14 and 15, the certified copy of the order of Tahasildar-cum-Irrigation Officer, Ext.16 and Village Map of Thelkonali village, Ext.17. The Appellant did not examined any witness but produced the trees statements Ext.A and the assessment reports of land Ext.B. After perusing these evidence learned referral Court felt that the rate of compensation fixed by the L.A. Zone Officer was inadequate. Judging the evidence on record he assessed that the market value of Sarada jala-1 was at Rs. 36,000/ - per acre,the acquired home stead land was Rs. 40,000/ - per acre and Baje dofasali land at the rate of Rs. 30,000/ - per acre. He accordingly directed that the compensation for the acquired lands be paid at the above said rate along with the compensation of Rs. 3,000/ - for the trees and also the statutory benefits provided under the L.A. Act. The said order is under challenge in this appeal.

Mr. Sangram Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel states that the quantum of compensation for the lands and trees fixed by the referral Court is not in accordance with the evidence on record. According to him, the rate fixed for Baje Dofasali land is on the higher side. Mr. P.C. Das, learned Counsel for the Respondents while supporting the impugned order submits that the Exts.1 to 17 along with oral evidence clearly establish that the Sarada land acquired from the Respondents was irrigated land yielding multi crops and hence the market rate of Rs. 36,000/ - fixed by the referral Court is very reasonable. He also argues that the value of the home stead land and Baje dofasali land awarded are based on material on record and therefore, it cannot be faulted. Regarding the value of the trees he alleges maintains that it is very much on the lower site and that the claimants are entitled to more amount as compensation for the trees.

Exts.1 to 13 are tax receipts showing payment of water tax by the claimant-Respondents Exts.14 and 15 are notices in certificate cases relating to recovery of arrear water tax from the Respondents. These documents along with Exts.16 show that the acquired lands were irrigated and fertile lands. Similarly, there was clear oral evidence to show that the acquired home stead land is situated near the High School, post office, Bus stand etc. of the village. When the home stead is situated inside the village having the facility of electricity, bus stand, post office and High School, its value is bound to be reasonably high. Similarly, evidence is available to show that Respondents were raising vegetable crops in those Baje dofasali lands, which were acquired. Ext.A, the statement prepared by the Appellant shows that 73 standing trees including 34 date palm trees, five palm trees, one Badhial trees were acquired. So the assessments of Rs. 36,000/ - per acre for the irrigated sarada land, Rs. 43,000/ - per acre for the home stead, Rs. 30,000/ - baje dofasali and Rs. 3,000/ - for the standing trees was modest and reasonable. Such assessment of the referral Court which is supported by evidence and reason does not call for any interference.

The impugned order is accordingly confirmed and the appeal is dismissed on contest, but in the peculiar circumstances without any cost.