Orissa High Court
Union Of India vs Land Acquisition Officer on 11 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
LAA NO.45 OF 2016
Union of India .... Appellant
Mr. Avijit Pal, Advocate
-versus-
Land Acquisition Officer, Khurda .... Respondents
Road-Bolangir Rail Link Project &
Others
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
ORDER
11.11.2021
I.A. No.147 of 2016
Order No.
05. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement
(virtual/physical mode).
2. Heard.
In view of the payment of the deficit court fee, the prayer
advanced in this application does not survive for consideration.
The I.A. is accordingly disposed of.
(D. Dash),
Judge.
ORDER
11.11.2021
LAA NO. 45 OF 2016
Order No.
06. 1. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal under Section-54 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the LA Act) has assailed
the judgment / award dated 29.03.2016 passed by the learned
Senior Civil Judge, Nayagarh in L.A. Misc. Case No.59 of 2013.
// 2 //
2. Facts necessary for the purpose run on the score that the
land measuring Ac.0.24 decimals appertaining to Khata
No.285/479, Plot No.886 of kisam Sarad-II, in mouza Laxmi
Prasad in the District of Nayagarh owned by the Respondent No.3
has been acquired for the purpose of Khurda Road-Bolangir Rail
Link Project. The Land Acquisition Officer assessed the
compensation payable to the Respondent No.3 for the acquired
land at Rs.2,41,581/- together with the statutory benefits as
available. The Respondent No.3 having received the awarded
compensation, raised objection to the said assessment of the
market value of the land in further claiming the enhancement of
the compensation amount and that is how the reference under
Section-18 of the LA Act has been made to the Court of Senior
Civil Judge, Nayagarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Referral
Court').
3. Respondent No.3 claimed that the market value of the said
plot of the land has been assessed on a lower side. It is further
stated that so many advantages that the land is having and its
peculiar location/situation have been ignored in assessing the
market value by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is further stated
that the land in question being situated at a distance of 400 meters
from the Nayagarh-Kendrapara PWD Road and the market as well
// 3 //
as the medical being in the nearby vicinity have been totally
ignored in assessing the market value and so also the valuation at
which the nearby lands have been sold are not taken into account
for the purpose of assessing the market value of the land by the
Land Acquisition Officer. In view of all these, the Respondent No.
3 claimed for determination of the market value of the land at a
higher rate and accordingly, enhancement of the compensation.
4. The Appellant and others arraigned as Opposite Parties in
the said proceeding, resisted the claim of enhancement of
compensation as advanced by the Respondent No.3 in stating that
the compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer is just
and proper.
5. The Referral Court coming to answer the reference has
gone to decide the point as to whether the Respondent No.3 is
entitled to in higher compensation for the land acquired. On going
through the evidence, the Referral Court has held the Respondent
no.3 to be entitled to compensation @ Rs.12,000/- per decimal and
has directed the Appellant to pay the compensation for the
acquired land computing the market value of the land accordingly
with other available statutory benefits.
6. Mr. Avijit Pal, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits
that the conclusion of the learned Referral Court that the market
// 4 //
value of the land would be at the minimum of Rs.1200/- per
decimal is against the weight of evidence on record. Referring to
the judgment/ award, he points out that the evidence on record has
not been appreciated in a just and proper manner. According to
him, in determining the market value of the acquired land, the
learned Referral Court has not appreciated the documentary
evidence properly. He, therefore, submits that it is a fit case for
interference with the award which is mere guesstimation which is
not permissible.
Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully
gone through the impugned judgment/ award passed by the referral
court.
7. It would be seen that the land of the Petitioner which
stood recorded under Khata No.285/479 assigned with Plot No.886
of an area of Ac.0.24 decimals of Sarad-II kisam has been acquired
for the said project. The evidence available on record is on the
score that the land is situated at a distance of 400 meters from
Nayagarh-Kendrapara PWD Road; 100 meters from the road
running from Bebarta Palli Chhak to Barpali. The evidence further
reveals that the land is at the outskirt of Nayagarh Town and there
stands a public school at a distance. No doubt the kisam of land as
per the record finds mention as Sarad-II. However, along with the
// 5 //
obtained evidence on record, further judicial notice of the fact has
to be taken that with the developments, the lands in such areas are
no more used for cultivation and keeping that in view the State
Legislature has also made the procedure for conversion of the
agricultural land to homestead land more simpler in order to
encourage the development activities although now the time has
come to rethink on that as the total cultivable land in the State is
day by day reducing which is posing threat to the growth in the
agriculture sector. The other important factor to be taken note of is
that while fixing the fees for the purpose of conversion of kisam of
such type of land the legislature has fixed the proximity of the land
with the National/State Highway/Public Road for conversion of
kisam as the guide and thereunder the land closer to the roads are
charged with more fees than those at a distance.
Having taken all these aspects into consideration and
viewing the evidence on record, in my opinion, the market value as
has been determined in the case is neither unreasonable nor
excessive.
8. This Court therefore finds no such reason/justification to
interfere with the determination of the market value of the land
acquired as made by the Referral Court and accordingly, the
direction to so compute the compensation with the allowable
// 6 //
statutory benefits to be paid to the Respondent No. 3 is held to be
well in order.
9. Resultantly, the Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to
cost.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(D. Dash),
Judge.
Narayan
