Orissa High Court
Assistant Defence Estate Officer vs Unknown on 25 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
LAA NO.89 OF 2018
In the matter of an appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition
Act challenging the judgment dated 22.09.2017 passed by the learned
Senior Civil Judge, Baleswar in L.A. No.402 of 2014.
.........
Assistant Defence Estate Officer,
Bhubaneswar :::: Appellant
-:: VERSUS ::-
Satrughna Mohanty (Since Dead)
By his LRs :::: Respondents
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(virtual/physical mode)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant :::: Mr.A.K.Mohanty,
Central Government Counsel
For Respondents :::: M/s.N.Panda, M.K. Panda and
G.Mohapatra
(Advocates)
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
DATE OF HEARING::12.07.2022::DATE OF JUDGMENT::25.07.2022
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D.Dash, J. The Appellant by filing this Appeal under Section-54 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (for short called as 'the LA Act') has
challenged the award dated 22.09.2017 passed by the learned Senior
Civil Judge, Balasore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Referral Court')
in Land Acquisition No.402 of 2014 in the matter of reference under
section 18 of the Act.
2. Based upon a requisition made by the Appellant, the
Government of Orissa published notification on 16.08.2007 under
LAA No.89 of 2018
// 2 //
section 4(1) of the LA Act for acquisition of Ac.8.567 decimals of land
owned by several persons in the Revenue Village of Karanjia under
Balasore Town Police Station. The purpose was for construction of
bypass road from Kuruda to Patrapada. Subsequently, notification
under section 6 of the LA Act was published on 28.08.2008.
The land belonging to the original Respondent No.1 (Since
Dead and are represented by his legal representatives as Respondent
Nos.1(ka) to 1(gha)) under Plot Nos.674, 675, 676, 678 and 812 under
Khata No.172 and under Plot Nos.679 & 680 under Khata No.67 of
Mouza-Karanjia, in total measuring Ac.0.977 decimals was acquired.
The Land Acquisition Officer assessed the market value of the land at
Rs.25,000/- per decimal. This assessment was made taking into
account the bench mark valuation as maintained in the Base Value
Register in the District Sub-Registrar Office as per the provisions of
Registration Act and Rules for the purpose of registration of
documents relating to the transactions of the land. It is stated by the
Respondents 1(Ka) to 1(Gha) that the valuation was on a lower side
and that is not the actual market price prevailing as on the date of
notification. They further stated that while assessing the market value
of the land, the Land Acquisition Officer has not taken into account the
developments which have taken place in the vicinity and especially the
potentiality as it stood then and the future potentiality. It is stated that
their land is on the side of the road attached with other facilities. It is
said that similar type of land in the locality are being sold for
consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- per decimals. The objection being
raised with regard to determination of the market value and assessment
of compensation, as made by the Land Acquisition Officer, the matter
had been referred to the Referral Court.
3. The Referral Court, based on the evidence let in by the parties
and upon their examination and evaluation, has determined the market
LAA No.89 of 2018
// 3 //
value of the land, which has been acquired in the proceeding at
Rs.50,266/-per decimal. Accordingly, it was directed that the
compensation be determined and paid to the Respondent Nos.1(Ka) to
1 (Gha).
4. Mr.A.K.Mohanty, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted
that when the Land Acquisition Officer had determined the market
value of the land at Rs.25,000/- per decimal, the learned Referral Court
has unreasonably enhanced the same by almost two. He submitted that
in doing so, the learned Referral Court has not followed the proper
process and its approach is not in the right direction in determining the
market value of the land as on the date of notification.
5. Mr.N.Panda, learned counsel for the Respondents 1 (Ka) to
1(Gha) supported the determination of the market value of the land, as
has been made by the learned Referral Court. According to him,
banking upon the valuation of the nearby land, as had been determined
in an earlier reference being carried up-to High Court in an Appeal and
then having applied, 15% escalation per year over it just and proper
market value of the land has been found out. He further submitted that
by such determination of the market value of the land, as has been
made by the learned Referral Court, has been taken care of all the
relevant factors and potentiality of the land as it then stood as also the
future potentiality.
6. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully gone
through the award passed by the learned Referral Court, which is
under challenge in this Appeal.
7. The land measuring Ac.0.977 decimals having been acquired,
we are concerned with determination of the market value of the same
LAA No.89 of 2018
// 4 //
as on the date of notification during the year 2007-2008. The total area
is slightly less than an acre and its kisam is Sarad-II.
The evidence has been let in to show that the land nearby have
already been used and developed as homestead land long before the
notification for acquisition. It is also there in the evidence that several
Educational Institutions, Government institutions, Market Complex,
Residential Buildings as also one Hospital have come up in the area.
The area as it appears from the evidence which has remained
unchallenged is in a developed locality. Earlier, there had been
references to the Referral Court under section 18 of the L.A. Act for
determination of the market value of nearby land which had been
acquired. Those acquired land and those stood numbered as L.A. Misc.
Case No.240 to 246, 249, 253, 254 and 261 of 2000 (common order
passed therein on 06.02.2002 has been admitted in evidence and
marked Ext.1). These lands were of the same classification. Finally,
the matter having carried to this Court in LAA No.16 of 2002, the
determination of the market value of the land at Rs.12,000/- per
decimals has been accepted. In that view of the matter, the learned
Referral Court, instead of relying on the evidence let in by the
Respondents 1 (Ka) to 1(Gha), the consideration involved in the some
transaction of the nearby land which are of other years is absolutely
right in computing the market value of the acquired land taking the
earlier determined market value of the land then acquired as the guide
in adding 15% towards escalation per year. However, in doing so,
when the Referral Court has found the market value of the land as on
20.05.2007 to be Rs.48,550/- per decimal, it should have given gone
some reduction looking at some unforeseen factors and imponderables.
Furthermore, it should not have added meticulously 15% escalation for
the left over period of two months and 26 days by proportionately
calculating in that way. So, here this Court is of the view that there has
LAA No.89 of 2018
// 5 //
to be some reduction on the market value of the acquired land as
determined by the learned Referral Court. With the obtained evidence
and further taking into account all other relevant factors; this Court is
of the view that the market value of the land if determined at
Rs.48,000/- (Rupees Forty-Eight Thousand) per decimal would be
proper. The Appellant is, therefore, directed to pay the compensation
for the acquired land to the Respondent Nos.1(Ka) to 1(Gha) by
computing the same taking the market value of the land at Rs.48,000/-
per decimal with all other statutory benefits as are allowable. The
compensation, as aforesaid, be paid to the Respondent Nos.1(Ka) to
1(Gha) within four months hence.
8. The Appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above. No order
as to cost.
D. Dash,
(Judge).
Basu
LAA No.89 of 2018
