Orissa High Court
Union Of India vs Collector on 11 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
LAA NO.68 OF 2016
Union of India .... Appellant.
Mr. Avijit Pal, Advocate
-versus-
Collector, Nayagarh & Others .... Respondents
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
ORDER
11.11.2021
MISC. CASE NO.213 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
MISC. CASE NO.213 OF 2016
Order No.
06. 1. Heard.
Considering the submissions made and on going through
the averments made in the petition, the delay of only 22 days in
filing the Appeal is condoned.
The I.A. is accordingly disposed of.
(D. Dash),
Judge.
// 2 //
ORDER
11.11.2021
LAA NO. 68 OF 2016
Order No.
07. 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 27.08.2016 passed by the learned
Senior Civil Judge, Nayagarh in L.A. Misc. Case No.61 of 2013.
2. Facts necessary for the purpose run on the score that the
land measuring Ac.0.06 decimals appertaining to Khata
No.285/519, Plot No.804/2629 of kisam Sarada Do Fasali-II, in
mouza Laxmiprasad 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.60,300/- as payable together with the statutory
benefits as available. The Respondent No.3 having received the
awarded compensation, raised objection to the said assessment of
the compensation. He further claimed for enhancement of the
compensation amount and that is how a reference under Section-18
of the LA Act has been made to the court of Senior Civil Judge,
Nayagarh (hereinafter referred to as 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
// 3 //
stated that although the kisam of the land as per the records stands
as Sarada Do Fasali-II for all practical purpose, it is piece of
homestead land. It is further stated that the land in question is
situated at a distance of 1 km. away from Khandapda-Nayagarh
PWD Road and Bhubaneswar-Bolangir National Highway. It is
claimed that the acquired land comes under Laxmiprasad village
which is a well developed village. With all these, the Respondent
No.3 claimed to fix the market value of land @ Rs.40,000/- per
decimal.
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 as has been assessed by the Land Acquisition
Officer is just and proper.
5. The Referral Court coming to answer the reference has
gone to decide as to whether the Respondent No.3 is entitled to any
higher compensation in the land acquired. On going through the
evidence, the Referral Court has held the Respondent no.3 to be
entitled to compensation @ of Rs.12,000/- per decimal and
accordingly, has directed the Appellant to pay the compensation
for the acquired land, computing the market value of the land with
other available statutory benefits.
// 4 //
6. Mr. Avijit Pal, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits
that the conclusion of the learned Referral Court that the market
value of the land would be at the minimum of Rs.12,000/- 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 Responent-3 stood
recorded under Khata No.285/519 assigned with Plot No.804/2629
and out of the total land of Ac.0.18 decimals, land measuring
Ac.0.06 decimals has been acquired for the said project leaving the
rest and thereby diminishing the area, certainly reducing the scope
of cultivation to a good extent affecting the return. It also reveals
that though the acquired land stands recorded under kisam Sarada
Do Fasali-II, it is situated within the proximate of the National
// 5 //
Highway about 2/3 k.m away from the heart of the Nayagarh
Town. Keeping in view the evidence on record and the attending
the circumstances as those emanate therefrom, the Referral Court
has rightly said that the market potentiality of the land standing
fetch higher price than ordinary agricultural land. Taking into
account the documentary evidence Ext. 2 and 3 which are the two
sale transactions of the land in the vicinity with some
guesstimation, the Referral court having determined the market
value at Rs.12000/- per decimal; this Court finds no such
reason/justification to interfere with the determination of the
market value of the acquired land as made by the Referral Court
and accordingly, the direction to so compute the compensation
with the allowable statutory benefits to the paid to the Respondent
No.3 is held to be well in order.
8. Resultantly, the Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to
cost.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(D. Dash),
Judge.
Narayan
