Orissa High Court
Haridaspur-Paradip Railway ... vs Sk. Kasimuddin And Others on 15 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
LAA NO. 2 OF 2017
Haridaspur-Paradip Railway Company .... Appellant
Ltd.
Mr. Satya Smruti Mohanty,
Advocate
-versus-
Sk. Kasimuddin and others .... Respondents
Mr. R.K. Nayak, Advocate
(For Respondent Nos.1 to 8)
Ms. Suman Pattanaik,
Additional Government Advocate
(For Opposite Party Nos.10 & 11)
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 15.09.2021
7. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. On the request of learned counsel for the parties, the
same is taken up for final hearing and disposal.
3. This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') assailing the
judgment and award dated 9th April, 2015 passed by learned
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jajpur in L.A.R. No. 08 of 2009
awarding compensation on the land acquired, i.e., Ac.0.08
decimals, at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per decimal along with
additional market value @ 12% per annum from the date of
publication of notice under Section 4(1) of the Act.
4. At the outset, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the
Appellant submits that the Appellant only assails the quantum of
compensation awarded in respect of the land acquired, i.e. Khata
No. 1102 to the extent of Ac.0.08 decimals in mouza Nalipur of
// 2 //
district Jajpur (for short 'the acquired land') under kissam
"Sarada-jala-dofasali-I" for construction of Haridaspur-Paradeep
Rail Link vide Gazette Notification No.07 dated 3rd December,
2004 under Section 4(1) of the Act. Although the acquired land
was recorded under kissam Sarada-Jala-dofasali-I (agricultural
land), but learned Civil Judge on misconstruction and miss-
appreciation of evidence, held the same to be non-
agricultural/non-consolidable land and awarded a compensation
at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per decimal. It is his submission that
only taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the
Claimants, learned Civil Judge has awarded an inflated
compensation in their favour. Learned Civil Judge while
awarding compensation has taken into consideration the
Registered Sale Deed No.1022 dated 31st July, 2004 (Ext.8) and
Registered Sale Deed No.477 dated 24th March, 2005 (Ext.9) to
determine the market value of the land acquired. He also relied
upon the certified copy of valuation report issued by Sub-
Registrar, Badachana (Ext.10), which was marked as Ext.C-1 in
L.A. No.8/2009 before the Land Acquisition Collector and
submitted that registered sale deeds alone cannot determine the
market value of the land acquired.
5. It is further submitted that although the Appellant is a
necessary party to the reference made under Section 18 of the
Act, it was neither impleaded nor served with any notice to put-
forth its case. Learned Civil Judge ought to have made an
objective assessment rather than placing reliance upon the
consideration amount of sale of another plot in the locality.
Further, finding of learned Civil Judge to the effect that non-
consolidable land must have higher market value than
// 3 //
consolidable agricultural land is not only illegal but also without
any basis. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the impugned
award and remitting the matter back to the learned Civil Judge
for fresh adjudication giving him an opportunity of hearing.
6. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Claimants-
Respondents supported the impugned award and contented that
although the acquired land was recorded under "kissam Sarada-
jala-dofasali-I", but the same was non-consolidable land. The
acquired land situates near to the National Highway and the
same has been converted for being used for homestead purpose
and is fit for construction of residential house. The acquired
land situates adjoining the public road, School, Colleges,
Hospital and business center. It also situates in the vicinity of
Buddhist Monument like Ratnagiri, Lalitgiri and Udayagiri.
Thus, it has lost its character of being used as agricultural land.
He also relied upon the discussion made by learned Civil Judge
at paragraph-7 of the impugned award wherein he discussed the
evidence of the witnesses. He further submits that the
compensation awarded is liable to be enhanced but in order to
receive the awarded amount at an early date, the Claimants-
Respondents did not prefer to file any appeal. It is his
submission that the impugned award is a well-discussed one and
needs no interference.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the records, there appears no iota of doubt that the
acquired land is a non-consolidable land. Thus, it has lost its
character of being used as an agricultural land although recorded
as such. It further appears that neither any objection/written
statement to the reference under Section 18 of the Act was filed
// 4 //
by the Opposite Parties therein including the General Manager,
East Coast Railways and Land Acquisition Collector nor any
documentary evidence was led on their behalf. Thus, the
contention of the Claimants before learned Civil Judge remained
uncontroverted. It further appears that a meager amount of
Rs.10,000/- per decimal was assessed by learned Civil Judge
towards compensation. No material is placed before this Court
by the Appellant to show that the amount so awarded was
erroneous. On the other hand, learned Civil Judge relying upon
Exts. 8 and 9, i.e. certified copies of contemporaneous registered
sale deeds, assessed the aforesaid amount.
8. The evidence on record clearly suggests that assessment
of compensation at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per decimal in respect
of the acquired land is just and proper. The acquired land is
situated abutting the public road in the vicinity of Buddhist
Monuments, which are tourist places. Exts. 8 and 9 clearly go to
show that those were executed prior to the acquisition of land.
Ext. 8 was in respect of Ac.0.08 decimals of land, which was
sold at Rs.80,000/-. There is no material on record to show that
said Exts. 8 and 9 are prepared for receiving higher
compensation. Learned Civil Judge also relied upon the
decision in the case of Anjani Malu Dessai -v- State of Goa
and another, reported in (2010) 13 SCC 710 in which it has
been held that when there are different sale transactions,
transaction representing higher value should be preferred to
the rest for assessing the compensation. In the case of
Ashrafi and others -vs.- State of Haryana and others, reported
in AIR 2013 SC 3654, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
sale transactions close to the date of notification in respect
// 5 //
of similar nature of plots in the vicinity should be taken into
consideration while determining the market value of the land
acquired. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the Appellant
that in view of the developments in the vicinity, the acquired
land has lost its character of being used as agricultural land and
has been recorded as such in the consolidation R.O.R.
9. Another important aspect that needs consideration is that
the claimants-respondents have lost their valuable property,
which cannot be compensated by any amount of compensation.
10. Ordinarily, the matter would have been remanded to the
Court of Reference for fresh adjudication providing the
appellant an opportunity of being heard, as it is a person
interested. But, learned counsel for the appellant could not
make out any case for remand by producing material, which
would have resulted in a different conclusion as arrived in the
impugned judgment/award, in the event the Appellant is given
an opportunity of hearing. Thus, remanding the matter to learned
court of reference will be an empty formality and in that process,
payment of compensation to the Claimants-Respondents will be
further delayed by compelling them to face further litigation.
Hence, I feel it proper to put a quietus to the matter by deciding
the matter finally.
11. Taking into consideration the discussions made above, I
am not inclined to entertain this appeal, which is accordingly
dismissed. But, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as
to costs.
12. The compensation amount together with interest and
other statutory dues shall be paid to the Claimants-Respondents
// 6 //
within a period of three months hence on proper identification
and other formalities in terms of the impugned award/ judgment.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
bks
