Orissa High Court
Sasmita Sahu vs L.A. Collector on 25 June, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
LAA No.40 of 2017
Sasmita Sahu ....... Appellant
-Versus-
L.A. Collector, Bhadrak &
ors. ....... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. B. Dash
Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. D.K. Behera
A.S.C.
...................
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 23.04.2024 Date of Judgment: 24.06.2024
_____________________________________________________________
S.K. MISHRA, J.
1. This Appeal has been preferred challenging the
judgment dated 06.02.2017 passed by the Civil Judge,
(Senior Division), Bhadrak in L.A. Misc Case No. 118 of 2007-
1, vide which the Court below rejected the application of the
Appellant for enhancement of compensation awarded by the
Land Acquisition Officer.
2. The brief facts which led to the filing of the case are
that, an area of 1.68 decimals of land belonging to the
Appellant was acquired by the Govt. for the purpose of
construction of Railway corridor from Bhadrak to Dhamara
vide notification no. 4500 dated 24.01.2000 of Revenue
Department in terms of section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894.
After taking into consideration all
contemporaneous materials pertaining to the acquired land
and its vicinity, compensation payable for the land was
determined at Rs.3,16,354/- by the Land Acquisition Officer
i.e. Respondent no.1. The Appellant opposed such valuation
as inadequate and claimed for enhanced compensation.
Thereafter, in a reference under section 18 of the Act, 1894,
which was registered as LA Misc Case No. 118 of 2007-1, the
Referral Court, vide order dated 06.02.2017, without
considering the potentiality of the acquired land dismissed the
case holding that the present Appellant (Petitioner in the
Court below) has failed to establish existence of any adequate
ground for enhancement of compensation. Hence, this
Appeal.
3. This Appeal has been preferred basically on the
ground that the court below has ignored the potentiality of the
acquired land, which has been thoroughly established by
evidence adduced on behalf of the Appellant (Petitioner in the
Court below) so also the fact that the acquired land has been
converted to homestead land. While passing the impugned
judgment, the Court below acted erroneously and rejected the
application for enhancement of compensation. Basing on the
decision of the apex court in Ranvir Singh & another Vs.
Union of India, reported in AIR 2005 SC 3467, it inferred
that the sale deed pertaining to the portion of lands, which
are the subject of acquisition, would be the most relevant
piece of evidence for assessing the market value of the
acquired land. But the Court below has misdirected itself by
wrongly interpreting the said judgment of the Apex Court,
wherein it was held that the market value of the acquired land
is to be determined taking into consideration the materials on
record so also other relevant factors necessary for such
determination.
4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that
the Court below has erroneously brushed aside the evidence
adduced by the P.W.1 who has clearly stated that out of a
patch of 0.44 Acre of land comprising of Plot No. 1346 (0.40
Acre) and Plot No.1348 (0.04 Acre), an area of 0.21 Acre has
been acquired by the Government leaving only 0.23 Acre of
land and such a small left out portion of land has been
rendered useless for the purpose for which it was kept to set
up a factory.
5. Reiterating the grounds agitated in the
memorandum of Appeal, the learned Counsel for the
Appellant further submitted that the Court below has
committed error in brushing aside the evidence adduced by
the P.W.1 stating that the acquired land is close to the busy
market place, railway station, the village school and Co-
operative Office and is under the Town Planning Area, hence
has a great potential value as well as adjacent to other
homestead lands of the locality separated by pucca road lying
in between. Further, the acquired land is within a short
distance from the Railway Station and that a public road
connecting Bhadrak Railway Station to Rambhila Bazar runs
adjacent to the acquired land.
6. As regards to the valuation of the acquired land,
learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that Ext.7 i.e.
Sale Statistics of Mouza- Sushiladeipur, shows at Entry No.4
that 'Baje Fasal' land has been sold at Rs. 2 Lakh per Acre as
on 14.02.2003 as well as Entry No.11 shows that the 'Sarad'
land has been sold at Rs. 2 Lakh per Acre as on 26.08.2003.
Further, Ext.-4 i.e. a registered sale deed dated 01.02.2001,
in respect of land of the adjacent Mouza-Tishalpur shows that
land has been sold at Rs. 3 Lakhs per Decimal.
He further submitted that the Court below has
ignored the sale deed produced by the Appellant (Petitioner in
the Court below) solely on the ground that such land belongs
to Tishalpur Mouza and not to Sushiladeipur Mouza without
considering the fact that the Railway line runs adjacent to the
East of the acquired land and Tishalpur-Mouza is on the
other side of the Railway track and both the Mouza-
Sushiladeipur and Tishalpur are adjacent to each other
enjoying similar facilities and advantages and having similar
potentialities for the purpose of determination of
compensation.
7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant also submitted
that in determination of market value of the acquired land,
instances of contemporaneous sale statistics relating to the
portions of the same or neighbouring lands form the best
evidence and in case such sale statistics show variant rates,
the higher rate available should be adopted. However, in the
present case, as the Court below has failed to consider the
sale transaction as under Ext.1 and Ext.4 so also the sale
statistics as under Ext. 7 while rejecting the application for
enhancement of compensation filed by the Appellant
(Petitioner in the court below), the impugned judgment passed
by the Court below in L.A Misc Case No. 118 of 2007-1 is
illegal and liable to be set aside.
8. To substantiate his submission, learned counsel for
the Appellant relied on the judgment of Apex Court in Land
Acquisition Officer, A.P Vs. Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao
and Ors, reported in AIR 2007 SC 1142 in which it was
observed that, sale relating to similar land in the vicinity is to
be relied upon for the purpose of determination of
compensation of the acquired land.
9. In response to the submissions made by the
Learned Counsel for the Appellant, learned counsel for the
State-Respondent submitted that the acquired land is the
purchased land of the Appellant, but the sale deed of the
same has been concealed by the Appellant as it would
indicate the actual market value of the acquired land. It is the
stand of the State-Respondent that the acquired land being
consolidated, has less marketability due to bar under
consolidation law. Thus, the acquired land does not have any
potential value. Learned State Counsel further submitted that
there is no road connection to the acquired land, hence, it
cannot be converted into homestead land and most of the
time it remains water logged.
10. In view of the said submissions made by the
learned Counsel for the parties, on perusal of the LCR, it is
ascertained that P.W.1 in his examination in chief has stated
that the acquired land is close to busy market place, railway
station, nearer to village-school and Co-operative Office. It has
a great potential value. Homestead lands are just on the
opposite side and connecting the pucca road lying at a small
distance from the acquired land. In order to convert the said
land to homestead, the Petitioner had converted plot
no.1335/2316 Acre 0.48 and plot no.1339/2317 Acre 0.52.
By the acquisition, the said lands become useless as no
purpose would be now served by keeping the road when the
proposed homestead site had been acquired. It has also
stated by the P.W.1 that the land in question is under the
Town Planning Area and has a great potential value. But the
Land Acquisition Collector has not taken into consideration
the said facts.
11. P.W. 1 further stated in his Affidavit evidence that
plot no.1346 measures an area of Acre 0.40 from which an
area of Acre 0.17 has been acquired. Adjacent to the said plot,
there is plot no.1348 measuring an Acre of 0.04 and the same
has been acquired. By such acquisition, an area of Acre 0.21
has been acquired from the said patch making the un-
acquired area of Acre 0.23 decimal useless and the same
cannot be used for any other purpose.
12. It was also stated by the P.W. 1 that the Petitioner
also owns other landed properties lying adjacent to the
acquired land. Altogether, the Petitioner owned and possessed
Acre 9.29 of land at that patch, out of which an area of Acre
5.82 has been acquired and out of the rest Acre 3.47 of the
land, road has been constructed over an area of an Acre 1.00
over plot nos.1335/2316 and 1339/2317. The said land has
been developed to a road, as the Petitioner has the intention
to set up an industry/factory there. By the acquisition, the
same is not possible and the land in question has become
completely useless.
13. P.W.1 has also stated that after acquisition of the
land for railway corridor, the railway line has already been
laid and with the plying of the trains, the flora and fauna of
the area has been affected, which has a direct effect on the
productivity also. Accordingly, P.W.1 stated that the actual
compensation payable should be Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees
Thirty Lakh) and the Petitioner is entitled to be awarded with
such amount.
14. During his cross-examination most of the evidences
of P.W.1, what has been stated in the examination in chief,
remained untouched. Rather, during his cross-examination,
P.W.1 has stated that by the time of acquisition, the value of
the suit land was 10,00,000/-. Now the market value of 1
decimal of land over the suit area is more than Rs.1,00,000/-
15. Though in his cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted
that the suit land is an irrigated land by canal irrigation and
the said area is a consolidated area, but he has stated that
Gadi Chhak is around 50 mtrs away from his house and
Bhadrak is around 30 k.m. away from Gadi Chhak. P.W.1 has
stated in his cross-examination that they have constructed a
road towards western portion of the suit land and now they
have set up a brick kiln over it and the road is used for
transportation and rest of the land is now under one
enclosure.
16. P.W.2 has stated in his Affidavit evidence that
around 5 to 6 acre land was acquired by the Railways out of
an area of more than 9 Acres. In the said area, there was also
a road laid by the Petitioner measuring an area of one Acre.
P.W.2 also stated that the disputed land is within a distance
of 1 k.m. from Bhadrak Railway station and a public road
runs adjacent to the land of the Petitioner, which connects
the Bhadrak Railway Station to Rambhila Bazar, which is also
within a distance of 1k.m from the disputed land. The Railway
line runs on the adjacent east of the disputed land and to the
other side of the Railway line is mouza Tishalpur.
17. P.W. No.2 also stated that 10 years ago the rate of
one decimal land near the disputed land was Rs.15,000/- to
16,000/-, but his examination in chief remained untouched
/undemolished during his cross-examination.
18. As is revealed from the LCR, since no Registered
Sale Deed (RSD) of mouza Susiladeipur was available to make
comparison to substantiate the claim for higher compensation
in favour of the Appellant, he wanted to rely upon the RSDs of
the adjacent mouza namely, Tishalpur and exhibited certain
RSDs, which were marked as Exhibits 1 and 4.
19. As is further revealed from the LCR, the Appellant
(Petitioner before the Court below), after obtaining copies of
documents under the RTI Act, 2005, filed an application
before the referral Court for admitting the said documents in
evidence. The Court below allowed the said petition and
marked the letter of the Public Information Officer dated
24.03.2014, order sheet of the proceeding before the L.A.O.
dated 17.09.2005 and sale statistics of village Sushiladeipur
as Exhibits 5 to 7 respectively with an observation that the
Court is of the view that the said documents are essential for
effectual adjudication of the said Misc. Case. It is further
revealed from the LCR that, being directed by this Court vide
order dated 16.12.2016 in CMP No.1824 of 2016, the
Registered Sale Deed bearing No.3623 dated 26.08.2003 was
marked as Exhibit 8 in L.A. Case No.118 of 2007.
20. As is revealed from Exhibit 7, which is the sale
statistics of mouza Susiladeipur, entry no.4 indicates "Baje
Fasal II" land has been sold at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per
acre as on 14.02.2003. Similarly, entry no.11 in Exhibit 7
shows that "Sarada Jala II" land was sold @ Rs.2,00,000/-
per Acre as on 26.08.2003. It is further revealed from the
LCR, the RSD dated 26.08.2003, which was marked as
Exhibit-8, shows that the land in mouza Susiladeipur, which
is a Chaka land, was sold @ Rs. 2,00,000/- per Acre. But the
Court below has not taken into consideration such sale deed
while passing the impugned order.
21. As is revealed from the LCR, vide Exhibit 6, it was
proved that the L.A.O. in the Land Acquisition Case, vide the
said order, so far as sale statistics of chaka land in village
Susiladeipur, held that the land under the classification of
chaka has been sold within the sale range from Rs.65,000/-
to 40,80,000/- per acre, but did not take into consideration
the sale transaction vide RSD no.2598 dated 20.07.2004
pertaining to Plot No.1907 measuring an area of Ac.0.02
decimal on the plea that the transaction of the said particular
plot of the village concerned appears to be interested and
exceptional and the said plot cannot be taken into
consideration for assessment of market value of the land of
said village-Susiladeipur. However, the last transaction,
which was executed vide RSD No.2790 dated 13.06.2005 in
respect of Plot No.2299 for an area of Ac.0.51 decimals for
consideration amount of Rs.53,550/-, which comes to
Rs.1,05,000/- per acre, was taken into consideration for
awarding the compensation in favour of the present
Appellant.
Though Ext.8 i.e. the certified copy of the RSD
No.3623 dated 26.08.2003, which was pertaining Sl. No.11 of
the sale statistics of village Susiladeipur marked as Exhibit.7,
is a chaka land, neither the referral Court took into
consideration Exhibit.7 i.e. sale statistics of village
Susiladeipur nor the said RSD dated 26.08.2003 marked as
Exhibit.8, while rejecting the claim of the Appellant for further
enhancement of the compensation amount.
22. Further, as detailed above, in view of the
unimpeached evidence of P.W.2 that the Railway track runs
adjacent to the east of the acquired land and mouza Tishalpur
is immediately on the other side of the Railway track, the
Court below failed to appreciate the immediate proximity of
the acquired land to the land of mouza Tishalpur and take
into consideration the transaction under Exhibits 1 and 4,
concerning the land of mouza Tishalpur, to evaluate the
compensation against the Petitioner's acquired land at mouza
Susiladeipur.
23. In Ranvir Singh and another vs. Union of India
reported in AIR 2005 SC 3467 : (2005) 12 SCC 59, the apex
Court vide para 38 held as follows:-
"38. Keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion
that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained
and accordingly the same is set aside. The matters
are remitted to the High Court for of the matter
afresh. The High Court shall proceed to
determine the market value of the acquired
land upon taking into consideration the
materials on record and all other relevant
factors necessary for determining the market
value of the lands in question."
(Emphasis supplied)
In Land Acquisition Officer, A.P. Vs. Kamadana
Ramakrishna Rao and Ors. reported in (2007) 3 SCC 526,
the apex Court vide para 20 held as follows:-
"14. The Land Acquisition Officer in his order
has recorded that rain-fed crops such as horse
gram, bobbara, column were grown by the
claimants-respondents in the acquired land No. F.
1384 to 1388 and in F. 1388, cashew nut plants
were raised in some parts of the land to the extent
of about Ac. 9.00 cents. Therefore, the finding of the
Reference Court that there were no cashew nut
trees found on the acquired land is factually
Incorrect and cannot be sustained. It has come in
the evidence of the claimants- respondents led
before the Reference Court that they had raised
maize crop at one time, which would have fetched
Rs. 4000 to Rs. 5000 per acre to them and other
crops jowar and bobbara in the next season. The
computation of compensation for
determination of market value may be carried
out on yield basis and multiplier of 20 adopted by
the Reference Court in the cases on hand is on the
higher side and contrary to the well-settled
proposition of law as laid down by this Court.
However, this Court is not precluded from
taking into consideration other circumstances
such as, the potentiality and utility of the
land acquired and awarding just
compensation to the claimants who are
deprived of their lands and other property.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of
these cases, as discussed above, we are of the
view that the amount of compensation awarded by
the High Court at the rate of Rs. 22,000/- per acre
to the claimants-respondents is adequate, just and
reasonable and cannot be said to be excessive or
unwarranted."
(Emphasis supplied)
In V. Subrahmanya Rao Vs. Land Acquisition Zone Officer
reported in (2004) 10 SCC 640, the apex Court vide para 6
held as follows:-
"6. There is no doubt that what has to be paid
is the market value of the land. As has been held
by this Court in the case of Special Deputy Collector
v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao the best evidence of
market value would be the sale transactions
in respect of the acquired land to which the
claimant himself is a party; the time at which
the property came to be sold; the purpose for
which it is sold; nature of the consideration
and the manner in which the transaction
came to be brought out, these are the relevant
factors. If those are not available then the
sale transactions relating to the neighbouring
lands in the vicinity of the acquired land have
to be taken into consideration. xxxxx".
(Emphasis supplied)
In Mohammad Raofuddin Vs. Land Acquisition Officer
reported in (2009) 14 SCC 367, the apex Court vide para 11
held as follows:-
"11. One of the preferred and well-accepted
methods adopted for working out the market
value of the land in acquisition cases is the
comparable sales method. The comparable
sales i.e. the lands sought to be compared
must be similar in nature and potentiality.
Again, in the absence of sale deeds, the
judgments and awards passed in respect of
acquisition of lands, made in the same village
and/or neighbouring villages can be
accepted as valid piece of evidence and
provide a sound basis to determine the
market value of the land after suitable
adjustments with regard to positive and
negative factors enumerated in Sections 23
and 24 of the Act. Undoubtedly, an element
of some guesswork is involved in the entire
exercise."
(Emphasis supplied)
In Vithal Rao and anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition
Officer reported in (2017) 8 SCC 558, the apex Court vide
para 28 held as follows:-
"28. In addition to these principles, this Court in
several cases has also laid down that while
determining the true market value of the acquired
land and especially when the acquired land is a
large chunk of undeveloped land, it is just and
reasonable to make appropriate deduction towards
expenses for development of acquired land. It has
also been consistently held that at what percentage
the deduction should be made varies from 10% to
86% and, therefore, the deduction should be made
keeping in mind the nature of the land, area under
acquisition, whether the land is developed or not
and, if so, to what extent, the purpose of
acquisition, etc. It has also been held that while
determining the market value of the large chunk of
land, the value of smaller piece of land can be
taken into consideration after making proper
deduction in the value of lands and when sale
deeds of larger parcel of land are not available.
This Court has also laid down that the Court
should also take into consideration the potentiality
of the acquired land apart from other relevant
considerations. This Court has also recognised
that the courts can always apply reasonable
amount of guesswork to balance the equities
in order to fix a just and fair market value in
terms of parameters specified under Section
23 of the Act."
(Emphasis supplied)
24. In view of the judgments of the apex Court, detailed
above,
(i) market value of the acquired land has to be
determined taking into consideration the material on record
and all other relevant factors necessary for determining the
market value of land in question.
(ii) the computation of compensation for
determination of market value may be carried out on yield
basis applying the appropriate multiplier
(iii) the Court, while determining the compensation,
has to take into consideration the other circumstances such
as the potentiality and utility of the land acquired and award
just compensation to the claimant, who is deprived of his land
and other property,
(iv) the relevant factors for determination of
compensation are the sale transaction in respect of the
acquired land to which the claimant himself is a party, the
time at which the property came to be sold, the purpose for
which it is sold, nature of consideration and manner in which
the transaction came to be brought.
25. Law is well settled that where one of the preferred
and well accepted methods adopted for working out the
market value of the land in acquisition cases is the
comparable sales method i.e. lands sought to be compared
must be similar in nature and potentiality. In absence of sale
deeds, the judgments and award passed in respect of the
acquisition of land made in the same village and area /
neighbouring village can be accepted as valid piece of
evidence and provide a sound basis to determine the market
value of the land after suitable adjustment with regard to
positive and negative factors enumerated in sections 23 and
24 of the Act and if it required, the Court has to determine the
compensation amount on guesswork basis. The apex Court
has recognized that the Court can always apply reasonable
amount of guesswork to balance the equities in order to fix a
just and fair market value in terms of parameters under
section 23 of the Act.
26. From the admitted evidences on record, so also
settled position of law, as discussed above, this Court is of the
view that the Court below erred in law while passing the
impugned judgment dated 06.02.2017 in L.A. Misc. Case No
118/2007-1, thereby rejecting to enhance the compensation
on the ground that the present Appellant has not been able to
establish the fact that the acquired land carries similar
potentiality and advantages as of the land acquired in
Exhibits 1 and 4 and P.W.1, vide Paragraph 2 of his cross
examination, admitted that the settled land is an agriculture
land and is a consolidated area.
27. This Court is of the further view that while
observing so to deny the prayer made by the Appellant
(Petitioner before the Court below), for further enhancement of
the compensation, the referral Court failed to take note of the
admitted evidence on record as to the locational advantage of
the plot acquired by the State so also its potentiality and
possibility of use of the said land for homestead purpose, as
was proved before the Court below.
28. Further, this Court is of the view that the Court
below also failed to take note of Exhibit 7 i.e. Sale Statistics of
village Susiladeipur, P.S./Tahasil/District-Bhadrak, which
well proves that the kisam of land being "Baje Fasal II" at
serial no 4 was sold at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre on
14.02.2003. Similarly, it has also failed to take note of the
fact that "Sarada Jala II" kisam of land of the said village as
Serial No.11 was sold at the same rate i.e. @ Rs.2,00,000/-
per acre on 26.08.2003. Hence, the impugned judgment being
perverse, deserves interference. Accordingly the same is set
aside and quashed.
29. As this Appeal is pending since 2017, instead of
remanding the matter back to the Court below, in view of the
admitted evidence on record as discussed above so also
settled position of law, the Respondents are directed to pay
compensation @ Rs.2,00,000/- per Acre to the Appellant for
the acquired land, instead of Rs.1,05,000/- per Acre and
calculate the differential enhanced compensation as directed
above and pay the said differential amount along with
statutory benefits and interest in terms of various provisions
of the Act, 1984 within a period of 8 weeks hence.
30. With the said observation and direction, the Appeal
stands allowed and disposed of. No order as to cost.
...............................
S.K. MISHRA, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack. Signature Not Verified
Dated, the 24th June, 2024 / Banita Digitally Signed
Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI
Designation: SR. STENOGRAPHER
Reason: AUTHENTICATION
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2024 11:08:40
