Shiba Prasad Majhi @ Siba vs Spl. Land Acquisition Officer
2023 Latest Caselaw 10486 Ori

A.F.R
          ORISSA HIGH COURT : C U T T A C K
                       W.P.(C) No.26701 of 2023
                 An application under Article 226 & 227 of
                         the Constitution of India


Shiba Prasad Majhi @ Siba                                    : Petitioner

                                 -Versus-

Spl. Land Acquisition Officer,                           :Opposite Party
Lower Indra Irrigation Project


For Petitioner                               : Mr. S. Satpathy, Adv.


For Opposite Party                           : Mr. S.P. Panda, AGA

                                 JUDGMENT

CORAM :

JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH Date of hearing & judgment :: 31.08.2023

1. This Writ Petition involves a challenge to the impugned award dated 9.09.2017 passed by the Lok Adalat in LAR Case No.7 of 2017 arising out of L.A. Case No.24 of 2000.

2. Background involved in this case is; Petitioner lost his land for being acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Khariar for construction of Lower Indra Irrigation Project in the District of Nuapada. For payment of compensation at a lower side, Petitioner raised his objection in a way demanding higher compensation. The proceeding was consequently registered U/s.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 for

// 2 //

being considered by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nuapada. Copy of protest of the Petitioner is at Annexure-2. On receipt of such protest petition the proceeding vide LAR Case No.7 of 2017 was registered. It be stated here that Opposite Party in LA Case No.24 of 2000 awarded compensation of Rs.1,37,878/- including cost of trees with 12% interest and 30% solatium.

3. Petitioner assailed the quantum on multiple grounds i.e. (i) compensation is not assessed with potential value of the land and (ii) there has also been ignorance of the cost of the valuable fruit bearing trees. After some postings the proceeding was placed before the Lok Adalat on 9.09.2017 and the proceeding before the Lok Adalat got concluded on 9.09.2017 thereby awarding compensation of Rs.80,000/- per acre for Mall/Atta land, Rs.1,00,000/- per acre of Berna/Bahal land and Rs.3,00,000/- per acre in respect of the land Gharabari in nature. It appears, on all the three previous proceedings prior to 9.09.2017 the parties remain absent and it is claimed that there is no consent of the Petitioner involving the Lok Adalat award involved herein. It is, on the premises that in the Court side disposal of the proceeding vide LAR No.183 of 2010 decided on 10.02.2023 there was awarding of compensation of Rs.1,84,000/- per acre for Mall/Atta land Rs.2,30,000/- per acre for Berna/Bahal the land and Rs.3,45,000/- per acre for Gharabari Kissam of land, Petitioner challenged the order of the Lok Adalat for being at a very very lower side and also on the ground of discrimination in the grant of compensation towards acquisition of land involving the selfsame land.

4. Challenging the impugned order learned counsel for Petitioner taking this Court to the judgment passed in Court's side in LAR Case No.183 of 2010 (C.S. No.152 of 2014) and further drawing the attention

// 3 //

of this Court to the ordering portion therein attempted to satisfy that there is great difference between the order of compensation at the judicial side and the order at the Lok Adalat side impugned herein.

5. Learned State Counsel, however, in his defense contended that for there is involvement of a Lok Adalat award, same cannot be interfered with in exercise of Writ jurisdiction.

6. For a question raised by the learned State Counsel on the entertainability of the Writ Petition in view of the disposal of the matter by the Lok Adalat involved herein, learned counsel for Petitioner taking this Court to the judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) Vrs. Yunus & Ors. decided with several other appeals on 3.02.2022 and also a further judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7791-7796 of 2013, submitted that the first judgment herein squarely covers the point raised herein by the learned State Counsel.

7. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, in disposal of the proceeding before the Lok Adalat impugned herein the following direction has been given:-

"The suit was posted to today for disposal in the LOK ADALAT. The Spl LIIP, Khariar is present. The petitioner and his learned counsel is also present. A conciliation among them went on and after relying upon the judgments passed fixing the compensation awarded, the reference is allowed and it was decided that the petitioner is entitled to get the compensation @ Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand) per acre for Atta and mala kisam of land, Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh) per acre for jal Ek Fasali, Bahal and Berna kissam of land. 3,00,000/- (three lakhs) per acre for Gharabari kissam of land and four times multiplier of the compensation given for trees. In addition, the petitioner is entitled to the additional market value @ 12% per annum from the date of publication of notice U/s.4(i) of the L.A. Act to till the date of taking possession of the land, statutory solatium @ 30% on the market value and interest @ 9% per annum for the year (1st year) after acquisition and @ 15% per annum for the

// 4 //

subsequent years till payment on the excess amount of compensation. The O.P. is directed to pay the compensation amount and the petitioner is directed to take all the effective steps in that regard. The suit is accordingly disposed of."

8. It is at the same time keeping in view the contest herein and on perusal of order passed in disposal of similar matters involving same type of land by judgment dated 10.02.2023 in disposing the LAR No.183 of 2010 undisputedly a contested disposal, it appears, the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Nuapada in judicial side passed the following order:-

"11. In the present case the compensation amount is fixed by the opposite party taking into account the sale transactions of Konabira and its neighbouring village. The working sheet reveals that the opposite party has relied on old sale deeds on the date of acquisition. In the matter of Jage Ram (D) through Lrs. vs. Union of India & Another reported in 2017 (II) CLR (SC)-276, the value of land should be assessed at 15% of enhanced rate where the compensation is calculated basing on the old sale deeds. Therefore, in the present case the value of acquired land will be Rs.1,84,000/- per acre for Atta/Mala/Anyanya Rasta/Nadi/Paninala/ Munda/Canal (Nala) kisam land, Rs.2,30,000/- per acre for Bahal/Berna kisam land and Rs.3,45,000/- per acre for Gharabari kisam land.

ORDER The reference is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party but without any cost. The petitioner is entitled to get compensation at Rs.1,84,000/- per acre for Atta / Mala / Anyanya Rasta / Nadi / Paninala / Munda / Canal (Nala) land, Rs.2,30,000/- per acre for Bahal / Berna kisam land and Rs.3,45,000/- per acre for Gharabari kisam land. In addition, the petitioners are entitled to additional compensation @ 12% per annum from the date of publication of notice u/s.4 (i) of the Act till date of taking possession of the land or date of passing the said award, whichever is earlier, statutory solatium @ 30% on the market value and interest at 9% per annum for first year after acquisition and 15% per annum till actual payment is made on the excess amount of compensation. The petitioners are not entitled for enhanced compensation for house. The opposite party is directed to pay compensation amount within four months from the date of this order. Accordingly, the reference is answered."

// 5 //

9. In the above background of the matter, this Court finds, there is no dispute that the case decided through the Lok Adalat proceeding not only involves very same nature of land but also in the same locality and there is higher grant of compensation for selfsame land in the contested proceeding. Reading through both the directions, this Court observes, there is definite discrimination in the grant of compensation. Since the judgment in judicial side was pronounced on 10.02.2023, this Court here observes, this was definitely not available for consideration of the Lok Adalat on 9.09.2017. This Court, therefore, does not find any fault with the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Nuapada, but however, finds, there is clear discrimination in the grant of compensation through disposal of the proceeding before the Lok Adalat and there is apparent suffering by similarly situated person.

10. It is, at this stage of the matter, keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court in Civil Appeal No.901 of 2022 along with several others decided on 3.02.2022 this Court finds, there is no dispute in Bar that this decision comes to rescue the Petitioner through paragraph nos.49 & 52, which reads as follows:-

"49. We would, therefore, approve the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Umadevi Rajkumar Jeure (supra) and the learned single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in Vasudave (supra) and hold that an Award passed under Section (20) of the 1987 Act by the Lok Adalat cannot be the basis for invoking Section 28A.

52. Having regard to all circumstances and the facts of this case we deem it appropriate to pass the following order: (1) The appeals are allowed. We declare that an application under Section 28A of the Act cannot be maintained on the basis of an award passed by the Lok Adalat under Section 20 of the 1987 Act. The impugned judgments stand set aside. Parties to bear the respective costs."

// 6 //

11. Looking to the observation of the Hon'ble apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.7791-7796 of 2013, this Court finds, the Hon'ble apex Court through paragraph nos.8 & 9 therein has given the following direction:-

"8. In the light of such confirmation, we are of the view that the appellants cannot be worse off than the other affected landowners of the same village, i.e., Morlipura, who have been paid more compensation. In a welfare state like ours where we have promised all the citizens social and economic justice, it would be fair and just if the appellants are meted equal treatment as the other affected landowners (claimants in Reference Case Nos.61-62 of 2017).

9. For the reason aforesaid, we set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 28th March, 2012 of the High Court and restore the judgment and award of the Reference Court dated 10th May, 2007. Whatever amounts the appellants are entitled to in terms of the Reference Court's judgment and award, minus the amounts so far received, shall be released with simple interest @ 5% per annum from 10th May, 2007, as early as possible but positively within ninety days of receipt of an authenticated copy of this judgment and order."

12. Considering the above, this Court finds, for there is clear discrimination Petitioner has a case requiring interference in the impugned order at Annexure-1 herein. This Court, accordingly, interfering in the impugned order at Annexure-1, sets aside the same.

However, for there is requirement of fresh determination of the proceeding vide LAR Case No.7 of 2017, the matter is remitted back to the Senior Civil Judge, Nuapada for fresh adjudication of the dispute U/s.18 of the Land Acquisition Act and passing a fresh judgment and decree while also keeping in view the findings and direction of the same Court involving similar set of land through LAR No.183 of 2010 and the Senior Civil Judge, Nuapada is also directed to find, there is no disparity in the grant of compensation towards acquisition of land.

// 7 //

13. Writ Petition succeeds but however, with an order of remand. But in the circumstance, there is, however, no order as to costs.

(Biswanath Rath) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack.

The 31st day of August, 2023// Ayaskanta Jena, Senior Stenographer

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 02-Sep-2023 13:37:12