Union of India vs Khirasindhu Mahadev Bije and Others

K.P. Mohapatra, J.

This is an appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ''the Act'') by the opposite party No. 2-appellant in a reference under Section 18 of the Act registered as MJC No. 142 of 1997. In this appeal, the judgment and order dated 27.9.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna, Kalahandi in MJC No. 142 of 1997 is under challenge.

By virtue of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, an area appertaining to Plot Nos. 84, 86, 87 and 88 under Khata No. 10 situated at Mouza Ghungurabahali to the extent of Ac.3.85 decimals (hereinafter referred to as ''the suit land'') was acquired for Lanjigarh Road-Junagarh New B.G. Rail Link Project. An award of Rs. 69,632/- was passed under Section 11 of the Act in L.A. Case No. 27 of 1994 which the land-loser, namely, Krupasindhu Mahadev Bije at Santpur, represented through Khagapati Sahoo, accepted on protest and filed a petition under Section 18 of the Act for reference to the civil court. During pendency of the appeal, said Khagapati Sahu died and his wife, Rambhabati Sahoo, was substituted in his place as respondent No. 1(a) in the appeal. In the petition filed under Section 18 of the Act, the land-loser contended that he was getting Rs. 2000/- per annum from Pisciculture which was not taken into consideration at the time of passing of the award. Moreover, he contended that one Madan Sundar Sahu had agreed to purchase the suit land at a consideration of Rs. 98,000/- per acre by executing an unregistered agreement dated 25.3.1994. Apart from the above, the suit land was adjacent to the main P.W.D. Road connecting Bhawanipatna to Narla Road and the market value was increasing day by day due to rapid growth of industrialization. On the aforesaid contention, the land-loser prayed for enhancement of compensation. The appellant, who is the beneficiary of acquisition of the suit land, along with Special Land Acquisition Officer filed their respective objections denying the averments made in the petition filed under Section 18 of the Act and contended that the land-loser/objector was not entitled to any higher amount of compensation. It was further contended that the value of the acquired land was correctly assessed on the basis of the sale statistics of that locality and categorically denied the contention of the objector/land-loser to the effect that he was getting Rs. 2000/- per annum from Pisciculture and one Madan Sundar Sahu had agreed to purchase the suit land for a consideration of Rs. 98,000/- per acre. The opposite party No. 2-appellant also contended that the petition was time barred. On the aforesaid assertion, they prayed for rejection of the petition filed under Section 18 of the Act.

In support of their objections, the land-loser/objector examined as many as four witnesses and exhibited two documents, i.e. Booklet titled as ''KAPA KAHANI'' and Village Map of mouza Ghungurubahali, as Exts. 1 and 2 respectively. On the other hand, the Special Land Acquisition Officer examined one witness, namely, Abhimanyu Dwibedi, Amin in the office of Special Land Acquisition Officer and exhibited as many as five documents. Similarly, the opposite party No. 2-appellant examined one witness, namely, K. Venkata Ramanadha Sharma, Section Engineer (Works), East Coast Railway for Lanjigarh Road-Junagarh New B.G. Railway Project and exhibited as many as five documents in support of their case.

The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna considering the rival contentions of the parties, vide judgment and order dated 29.7.2007 allowed the petition under Section 18 of the Act in part and directed the opposite parties 1 and 2 therein to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 53,935/- per acre for ''Bahal'' and ''Berna'' kissam of land and at the rate of Rs. 41,496/- per acre for ''Mala'' and ''Ata'' kissam of land to the petitioner for the acquired lands. It was further directed that in addition to the market value as assessed, the objector/land-loser-respondent No. 1 shall also be entitled to 12% interest per annum on the market value for the period commencing on and from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act till the date of award or the date of taking over possession of the land, whichever is earlier, as provided under Section 23(1-A) of the Act, together with solatium at the rate of 30% over and above the compensation. In addition to that, the objector was also held to be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation for the first year and 15% per annum for subsequent years till the date of actual payment. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the opposite party No. 2-appellant has filed this appeal.

Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously contended that the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna while adjudicating the matter did not, at all, take into consideration the sale deeds of contiguous plots of similar nature of the land of the same mouza while determining the market value of the land. He further contended that while recording a clear finding that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has determined the market value on the basis of the sale statistics and there was no other evidence available on record in support of determining the market value of the land, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna has committed an error in enhancing the compensation amount.

On perusal of the documents available on record, it is apparent that the referral court by taking into consideration in detail the materials placed on record came to a categorical conclusion that O.P.W. 2 is an Engineer and not being an agriculture expert, his evidence on assessment of market value cannot be treated to be final. The referral court further held that though the opposite party No. 2-appellant had placed reliance on the District Statistical Hand Books published by the Government of Odisha for the district of Kalahandi for the years 1993 and 2001, it was noticed that those Hand Books do not reveal as to the parameters on which the statistics and the data was prepared. In other words, it does not reveal as to how the statistical data has been prepared and what parameters have been taken into consideration at the time of preparation of data. That apart, the statistical data appeared in the Hand Books corresponds to a generalized picture of the productivity of the lands of Kalahandi District and do not give a clear picture specifically in respect of Bahal, Berna, Mala and Ata kissam of land. On the basis of improved technology and experience of an agriculturist, a cultivator can expect better yield from the land. The learned court below after threadbare discussion has assessed the income from different kissams of land, which do not inspire any interference. Learned counsel for the appellant could not bring to the notice any material to persuade this Court to differ from the assessment of market value and take a different view as assessed by the learned referral court. Though the Special Land Acquisition Officer by taking into consideration the sale statistics assessed the market value of the acquired land, the same appears to be not correct and proper. In view of discussion made, assessment made by the learned court below do not inspire any interference as the same is based on unimpeachable materials.

No material with regard to valuation of contiguous plots was produced before the learned court below justifying the assessment made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. It appears that none of the opposite parties has made any endeavour to produce contemporaneous sale deeds of contiguous plots of similar nature. Besides that Exts. A/2 and B/2, i.e., Sale Statistics obtained from the office of Sub-Registrar, Madanpur-Rampur of village Khain do not inspire this Court to take a different view with regard to the market value of the land assessed by the learned court below while adjudicating the reference.

In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to cost.