Orissa High Court
In The Matter Of An Appeal Under ... vs Unknown on 17 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
LAA NO.20 OF 2021
In the matter of an appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition
Act assailing the judgment/award dated 30.09.2019 passed by the
learned Senior Civil Judge, Rairangpur in L.A. Misc. Case. No.32 of
2016.
.........
The Spl. L.A.O., Subarnarekha :::: Appellant.
Irrigation Project, Bahalda, Baripada.
-:: VERSUS ::-
Bariswar Soren & Others :::: Respondents.
Advocate(s) who appeared in this case by Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode:-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant :::: Mr.G.N. Rout, Advocate
(Additional Standing Counsel)
.For Respondents ::::
.........
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing ::16.11.2021 :: Date of Judgment.17.11. 2021
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellants by filing this Appeal has assailed the
judgment/award dated 30.09.2019 passed by the Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Rairangpur in L.A. Misc. Case No.32 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-
Nandua belonging to the Appellant had been acquired by the State
for the purpose of construction of Subarnarekah Ichha Dam. The
=2=
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.
2. The Respondent 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
Acquisition Officer is grossly inadequate and in that exercise,
actual value of the acquired lands have not been considered.
The above claim of the Respondent was resisted by the
Appellant. Before the Referral Court the Claimant examined
himself as C.W.1 and another 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=
3. The learned Referral Court going to determine the just
and proper compensation award 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
learned 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 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 learned Referral Court earlier in disposing the
Land Acquisition Case No.30/16 on 19.09.2018 had determined
the 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 value of the land under Sarad-I and II had been
determined at Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.12,00,000/- per acre
=4=
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.
6. Learned counsel for the Appellant has not been able to
place any material that such market value of different kissam of
land as had been determined in the above noted three cases by the
Referral Court being further challenged has been modified/varied
being not just and proper.
Here is a case where a large chunk of lands of different
kissams belonging to the Respondent has been acquired and
thereby, 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
=5=
acquired for the same purpose under the same Notification have
been granted with compensation at the enhanced rate as afore-
stated, it stands to reason that the same standard is applied for
determining the compensation towards the lands of the
Respondent which has been acquired. In fact the statement
governing the field in order to remove the discriminatory treatment
to the land loosers for the acquisition of land under one
notification contains the provision at section 27-A that even a land
looser who has not sought for the reference for enhancement of
compensation would be entitled to get similar treatment in the
assessment of compensation for the acquisition of his land if the
compensation is assessed at a higher rate in a reference made at
the instance of another land looser whose lands have been
acquired under same notification in case, he moves the Competent
Authority within thirty days of passing of the award in the
reference provided of course the lands are of the same quality and
attached with same benefits etc.
In the present case, the Appellant has not produced
any such evidence on the above score to show that the lands
covered under those LA proceedings are not similarly situated with
the lands of Respondent which have been acquired.
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
=6=
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
recorded by the learned Referral Court is found to be well in order,
warranting no such interference.
8. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. No order
as to cost.
..........................
D. Dash, J.
Aks
