In The Matter Of An Appeal Under ... vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 11833 Ori

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
                               LAA NO.15 OF 2021

In the matter of an appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition
Act assailing the judgment dated 25.02.2020 passed by the
learned Senior Civil Judge, Rairangpur in L.A. Misc. Case. No.56 of
2016.
                              .........

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Subarnarekha Irrigation Project, Bahalda, Baripada. ::::: Appellant

-:: VERSUS ::-

Narayana Biruli :::: Respondent.

Advocate(s) who appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode:-

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                For Appellant                    :::: Mr.G.N. Rout, Advocate
                                                 (Additional Standing Counsel)


                .For Respondent            :::: M/s Basudev Pujari,
                                                B.K. Nayak & S.K. Pradhan
                                                Advocates
                                         .........
PRESENT:

                   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.DASH

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing ::01.11.2021 :: Date of Judgment.17.11. 2021

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Appellant by filing this Appeal has assailed the

judgment/award dated 25.02.2020 passed by the Civil Judge

(Senior Division), Rairangpur in L.A. Misc. Case No.56 of 2016 in

the matter of reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894 (for short 'the L.A. Act'). The land measuring Ac.5.89

decimals in eight plots recorded under Khata No.84/12 of Mouza-

=2=

Nandua belonging to the Respondent (claimant) had been acquired

by the State for the purpose of construction of Subarnarekah

Ichha Dam. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded

compensation of Rs.7,36,741/- for the said acquired land. In doing

so, the market value of the land under Sarad-I and II kissam had

been assessed at Rs.98,700/- per acre whereas the market value

of the homestead land under acquisition had been fixed at

Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. For the land under kissam Dahi-I and

Sarada-III, the Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the market value

at Rs.65,200/- per acre. However, in view of the demand raised by

the Respondent for payment of higher compensation, the matter

stood referred to the Court under section 18 of the Act (hereinafter

referred to as the 'Referral Court') for determination of just and

proper consideration for the said acquired land of the Respondent

(claimant).

2. The Respondent (claimant) has advanced a claim that

the market value of the acquired land would be more than

Rs.35,00,000/- and it is said that the compensation as has been

assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer is grossly inadequate and

in that exercise, actual value of the acquired lands viewing all the

attending factors has not been considered.

The above claim of the Respondent (claimant) was

resisted by the Appellant. Before the Referral Court the

Respondent (claimant) examined himself as C.W.1 and another =3=

independent witness has come to the witness box on his behalf as

C.W.2. From the side of the Appellant, the certified copy of the

Bench Mark Valuation sheet supplied by the Sub-Registrar,

Bahalda has been proved and marked as Ext.A to A/2 series.

3. The Referral Court going to determine the just and

proper compensation towards the acquired land as on the date of

publication of the Notification under section 4(1) of the L.A. Act,

i.e., on 04.07.2012 has finally determined the market value of the

acquired land under Sarad-I kissam at Rs.15,00,000/- per acre,

Sarad-II kissam of land at Rs.12,00,000/- per acre, Dahi-I as well

as Sarad-III kissam of land at Rs.10,00,000/- per acre and home-

stead land @ Rs.30,00,000/- per acre. Having so answered, the

Referral Court has directed the Appellant to make the payment of

compensation for the acquired land computing the market value of

the lands in question at the above rate and pay the same to the

Respondent (claimant) along with all the available statutory

benefits.

4. Heard Mr. G.N. Rout, learned Additional Standing

Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. B. Pujari, learned counsel for

the Respondent.

Perused the judgment/award passed by the learned

Referral Court.

5. The Referral Court earlier in disposing the Land

Acquisition Case No.30/16 on 19.09.2018 had determined the =4=

market value of the homestead kissam of land situated in the

same village and in the very vicinity at Rs.30,00,000/- per acre. In

that case the market value of the land under Sarad-I and II had

been determined at Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.12,00,000/- per acre

respectively. In another Land Acquisition Case No.2 of 2018, the

learned Referral Court in its judgment/award dated 30.09.2019

had found the market value of Dahi-I kissam of land of the same

village and locality at Rs.10,00,000/- per acre. In the other Land

Acquisition Case No.31 of 2016 the market value of the land under

Sarad-III kissam of that village and locality had been determined

at Rs.10,00,000/- per acre by the judgment and award dated

30.09.2019. It is not in dispute that all these lands covered under

aforesaid L.A. Case Nos.30/2016, 2/2018 and 31/2016 had been

acquired for the same purpose by that very Notification under

section 4(1) of the L.A. Act dated 04.07.2021 by which the land

involved in the present case was notified to be acquired and

accordingly, had been acquired by the State. The judgment/award

passed in LA Case No. 30 of 2016 being challenged in Appeal vide

LAA No.80 of 2019 finding no such reason/justification to

interfere, this Court has confirmed the same.

6. Learned counsel for the Appellant has not been able to

place any material that the market value of different kissam of

land as had been determined in the above noted two other cases =5=

by the Referral Court being further challenged has been

modified/varied.

Here is a case where large chunk of land of different

kisams belonging to the Respondent (claimant) has been acquired

and, it is well inferable that the Respondent by such acquisition

has not only lost his land but also has been totally deprived of that

source of income for all times to come in future. When other land

owners of the village whose lands have been acquired for the same

purpose under the same Notification have been granted with

compensation at the enhanced rate as afore-stated, it stands to no

reason as to why the same standard would not be applied for

determining the compensation towards the lands of the

Respondent (claimant) which has been acquired. In fact the very

object and reasons behind the introduction of the provision

contained in section 27-A of the LA Act is loud and clear that the

State should not be a party to the discriminatory treatment to the

land loosers for the acquisition of their land under one notification

and it does not stand to reason to pay less compensation to a land

looser merely because he has not sought for the reference for

enhancement of compensation when another similarly situated is

being paid more only for having sought for a reference. Therefore,

as per the provision of section 27-A of the LA Act all the land

loosers would be entitled to get similar treatment in the

assessment of compensation for the acquisition of his land if the =6=

compensation is determined at a higher rate in a reference made at

the instance of another land looser whose land has been acquired

under same notification, provided he moves the Competent

Authority within thirty days of passing of said award in the

reference subject to consideration that the lands are of the same

quality and attached with same facilities/ benefits.

In the present case, the Appellant has not produced

any such evidence on the above score to show that the lands

covered under abovestated LA proceedings are not similarly

situated with the lands of Respondent which have been acquired.

Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that majority people of the

locality live on cultivation as the employment in other sectors is

very limited and it is also so stated at the Bar.

In view of the aforesaid, the Referral Court when has

determined the market value of different kissams of land of the

Respondent, in consonance with the determination of the market

value of the lands acquired under that very notification as has

been made under the earlier judgments/ awards no such infirmity

is noticed therein.

7. In that view of the matter, the answer to the reference

returned by the Referral Court is found to be well in order,

warranting no interference.

Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed without

cost.

=7=

8. The Appellant is hereby directed to deposit the

enhanced compensation amount with all the available statutory

benefits/entitlement within four months hence and the payment to

the Respondent (claimant) is only to be routed through the Referral

Court and not in any other way and on the failure of the Appellant

to deposit as aforesaid, the amount shall carry further interest @

09% per annum till payment.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, it is felt

the necessary in the interest of justice to direct the Referral Court

that upon deposit of the amount as aforesaid by the Appellant;

80% of the same would be kept in unecumberable and non-

pledgeable long term Fixed Deposit of ten years at the minimum

in the name of the Respondent (claimant) in any Nationalized Bank

with monthly interest payable to him through his Savings Bank

Account and the rest 20% shall be paid to the Respondent

(claimant) by keeping the same in deposit in his Savings Bank

Account in the said Bank where the Fixed deposit would be kept.

..........................

D. Dash, J.

Aks