Orissa High Court
Executive Engineer vs Mulla Md. Ghulam Ghause & Otrs on 9 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
LAA No.79 of 2009
Executive Engineer, City .... Appellant
Distribution Division No.1, CESU
Mr. D.K. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
Mulla Md. Ghulam Ghause & Otrs .... Respondents
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
ORDER
09.11.2021
Order No.
11. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement
(virtual/physical mode).
2. The Executive Engineer, City Distribution of Central
Electricity Supply Company (CESCO) has filed this Appeal under
section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, called as 'the
Act') in assailing the judgment/award dated 31.07.2008 passed by the
learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), 1st Court, Cuttack (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Referral Court') in LA Case No.56 of 2002 in the
matter of a reference under section 18 of the Act.
3. Brief facts of the case necessary for the purpose run on the
score that by virtue of a Notification under section 4(1) of the L.A.
Act published in the Orissa Extraordinary Gazette dated 05.06.1878
an area of Ac.0.87 dec. of homestead land owned by the Respondent
Nos.1 to 3 was acquired for the purpose of construction of electric
substation. The Land Acquisition Officer assessed the compensation
as payable for the said acquisition of the land for the Respondent
Nos.1 to 3 at Rs.59,280/- taking the market value of the land at
Rs.90,000/- per acre. The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 having raised
// 2 //
protest; the matter has been referred to the Referral Court for
determination of appropriate compensation payable to the Respondent
Nos.1 to 3.
4. Before the Referral Court, the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 although
asserted that the market value of the acquired land would be more
than five lakhs per gunth, it is claimed that the minimum market value
of the land would stand at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunth. The Appellant
resisting the claim of enhancement of the compensation contended
that the compensation as assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer is
well in order.
The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 examined two witnesses and
proved the certified copy of the sale deed concerning the sale of the
land of that locality, which has been admitted in evidence and marked
as Ext.1. The Appellant, on the other hand, also examined two
witnesses and proved the documents marked as Exts.A to C.
Upon consideration of the evidence on record and their
analysis, the Referral Court has finally assessed the market value of
the acquired land at Rs.60,000/- per gunth and accordingly, directed
that the market value of the acquired land being calculated at that rate,
the same with all other statutory benefits including the interest as
available under law be paid to the Respondent Nos.1 and 3.
5. Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Appellant assailing
the award contends that the assessment of market value of the land as
has been made by the learned Referral court is against the weight of
evidence on record and not upon their proper analysis. He submits
that the learned Referral Court without assigning any such good
reason as available in evidence has abruptly jumped to the conclusion
as to fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.60,000/- per
gunth.
// 3 //
6. Mr. N. Behuria, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3
in refuting the above submission contends all in favour of the
determination of the market value of the land as has been made by the
learned Referral Court. It is submitted that the learned Referral Court
while enhancing the market value of the land from what it had been
assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer has made detail analysis of
the evidence let in by the parties and having taken all the relevant
factors including the situation of the land and its potential value has
rightly held the market value of the acquired land as Rs.60,000/- per
gunth.
7. Keeping in view the submissions made, the impugned award
is carefully gone through.
The evidence on record first of all reveals that the land
acquired for the purpose is 'Homestead and Kothabadil'.
Furthermore, it is situated in the heart of the city of Cuttack in a prime
locality that to in a commercial place. Ext.1 the certified copy of the
registered sale deed shows that in the year 1972, i.e., six years before
the acquisition of the land in question land measuring Ac.0.01 dec. of
that locality was being sold for a consideration of Rs.7,500/- The
Referral Court having analyzed the evidence adduced on behalf of the
Appellant has taken note of the fact that the witnesses examined on
their behalf do not have the knowledge about the valuation of the
land nor the area where the acquired land situated. Their examined as
witness OPW No.1 in his cross-examination has also admitted that at
the time of acquisition of the land a building was standing over it and
the value of such structure has not been taken into account. The sale
deeds (Exts.A and B) proved from the side of the Appellant have been
explained away as the kissam of land involved in those transaction are
Patita as also with respect to their situation not in the vicinity. Thus, it
appears that those lands covered under Exts.A and B are not
// 4 //
comparable to the land acquired nor those are of similar potentiality
and nature or user.
With the above evidence on record further taking into account
the surrounding circumstances as those emanate therefrom; the
learned Referral Court having determined the market value of the land
at Rs.60,000/- per gunth thus found to have committed no such error.
Therefore, this Court finds no such justification/ reason to interfere
with the impugned judgment/award.
8. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to cost.
Fifty percent of the decreetal awarded amount if lying in
deposit with the Executing Court in Execution Case No.87 of 2008
pursuant to the order dated 18.08.2010 passed by this Court, the same
with the accrued interest be immediately paid to the Respondent
Nos.1 to 3. The Appellant is further directed to deposit the balance
amount of compensation computing the same in terms of the
impugned judgment/award with the Executing Court within a period
of two months hence failing which the same would run with the
interest @ 12% per annum till said deposit for being paid to the
Respondent Nos.1 to 3. In the event of failure of the Appellant to
deposit the amount as aforesaid within two months, the Execution
Proceeding pending before the Executing Court would proceed for
realization of the balance amount in terms of the judgment/award with
further interest as above.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(D. Dash)
Judge.
Himansu
