Orissa High Court
Land Acquisition Officer vs Jaya Kumar Singh Deo on 8 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
L.A.A. No.32 of 2017
(In the matter of an application under
Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894)
Land Acquisition Officer,
Kalahandi ....... Appellant
-Versus-
Jaya Kumar Singh Deo ....... Respondent
Advocate for the parties
For Appellant : Mr. B. Panigrahi,
Addl. Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Mr. M.K. Mohapatro,
Advocate
----------------------------
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 29.08.2024 Date of Judgment: 08.11.2024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.K. Mishra, J. This Appeal has been preferred against the
Judgment dated 19.01.2016 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Bhawanipatna in L.A.R. No.150 of 2014 vide which
the Court below allowed the claim of the Claimant and
ordered for higher compensation.
2. The brief facts, which lead to filing of the Appeal,
are that an area of Ac.1.00 decimal of land in Plot
No.323/423, under Khata No.103/78, Mouza-Patiguda of Atta
Kisam belonging to the Claimant was acquired for the
purpose of construction of Talijore M.I.P. in pursuance of
Notification No.48916 dated 18.12.2009 made under Section
4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, shortly, 'the Act, 1894'.
The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) assessed the
compensation in total at Rs.49,518/- for an area of Ac.1.00
decimal, which the Claimant/Respondent received under
protest. Thereafter, in a reference under Section 18 of the Act,
1894, which was registered as L.A.R. No.150 of 2014, the
referral Court, vide order dated 19.01.2016 allowed the claim
of the Claimant/Respondent and ordered for higher
compensation @ Rs.4,00,000/- per acre for acquisition of the
land and ordered for payment of interest, solatium and other
benefits as per the statute. Hence, this Appeal.
3. The impugned Judgment has been challenged
basically on the ground that the Court below did not examine
the validity of the award determined by the LAO within the
parameters and mandatory guidelines stipulated under
L.A.A. No.32 of 2017 Page 2 of 10
Sections 23 & 24 of the Act, 1894 and acted in excess of its
jurisdiction, for which the impugned award is vitiated. Neither
sufficient reason was assigned nor the circumstance under
which it preferred to differ with the assessment of the market
value of the land determined by the LAO, has been detailed in
the impugned judgment. The Court below utterly failed in
considering the contemporaneous materials under Ext.1 as
well as the trustworthy evidence of O.P.W. No.1 in their
proper perspective. There was no clinching piece of evidence
on record enabling the Court below to compare the nature,
situational advantages and potentiality of the acquired
agricultural land so also factum of similarity of the said land
pertaining to its locational advantage, which could not be
established by the Claimant by adducing any cogent
documentary evidence. The Court below granted higher
compensation @ Rs.4,00,000/- per acre by placing reliance on
unsupported statements of interested witnesses.
4. Reiterating the grounds urged in the Memorandum
of Appeal, learned Counsel for the State submitted that the
impugned Judgment passed in L.A.R. No.150 of 2014 is
perverse and deserves to be set aside.
L.A.A. No.32 of 2017 Page 3 of 10
5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondent,
drawing attention of this Court to the findings of the Court
below in paragraph-7 of the judgment, submitted that not
only the present Respondent/Claimant led sufficient oral as
well as documentary evidence to substantiate his demand for
further enhancement of compensation but also the concerned
Amin, who was examined as the sole O.P.W.1 on behalf of the
State, during course of his cross-examination admitted that
village M. Rampur is adjoining to village Patiguda having one
boundary and that there are School, College, Court, Hospital
and Govt. Offices in village M. Rampur and the National
Highway from Gopalpur to Raipur is passing through village
M. Rampur and Patiguda. The O.P.W.1 further admitted that
village Kusurula is situated at a considerable distance from
the village M. Rampur.
6. Learned Counsel for the private Respondent
further submitted that village Patiguda is adjoining to village
M. Rampur which is a semi urban and fast growing locality
having College, School, High School, Courts, Hospital, Block
Office, Banks and Market Complexes within its boundary and
situated adjacent to National Highway No.217 from Raipur to
L.A.A. No.32 of 2017 Page 4 of 10
Gopalpur. Due to demand of house site at M. Rampur, the
Respondent had developed his acquired land into house site
long before the said acquisition. The Respondent, who
examined himself as P.W.1, in addition to deposing so, has
further deposed that Mala kisam of land, which is inferior to
Berna kisam of land, was sold @ Rs.5,00,000/- per acre in his
village as per the sale statistics obtained by the Opposite
Party. Apart from that, Respondent also led evidence before
the Court below that he was cultivating vegetables in the
acquired Berna kisam of land and was earning around
Rs.50,000/- per acre after meeting all agricultural expenses
by selling vegetables.
7. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted
that though specific evidence was led by the Respondent that
the Atta kisam of land acquired by the State was converted to
Gharabari kisam of land much before the date of notification
for acquisition, such oral evidence of the P.Ws. remained
unchallenged during their cross-examination. Hence, taking
into consideration the oral as well as documentary evidence
on record so also the Ext.1 i.e. Judgment passed by the same
Court in L.A.R. No.182 of 2014, vide which the market value
L.A.A. No.32 of 2017 Page 5 of 10
of Atta, Mala, Berna and Bahal kisam of land of nearby
remote interior village of Kushurla acquired vide L.A. Case
No.01 of 2009 was determined to be @ Rs.2,13,000/- per
acre, the Court below was justified to re-determine the
compensation for acquisition of the land of the Respondent @
Rs.4,00,000/- for Atta kisam of land per acre and there is no
infirmity in the impugned judgment and the present Appeal
deserves to be dismissed.
8. In view of the submission made by the learned
Counsel for the parties, on perusal of the L.C.R. so also the
impugned Judgment, it is found that the Court below, apart
from the admitted oral evidence on record, took into
consideration Ext.1 produced and exhibited by the present
Respondent, while re-determining the compensation amount,
as has been detailed above.
9. That apart, based on the evidence on record, the
Court below, vide para-8 of the impugned Judgment held as
follows:
"8. Xxx Admittedly the sale deed vide Ext.1
produced by the petitioner was a registered
document and authenticity thereof has not been
questioned by the OP. That apart the same has
been executed on 06.10.2009 which was about
two months prior to the notification U/s.4(1) of
the Act made in this case i.e on 18.12.2009.
L.A.A. No.32 of 2017 Page 6 of 10
The said sale deed was for sale of gharbari
kissam of land @ Rs.23,000/- per decimal in
adjoining village M. Rampur of the acquired
village. In the present case, the acquired land is of
Atta kissam of land. While assessing the proper
value of a land basing on the sale deeds, the factors
for consideration are the position, the existence and
the possible use of the lands. There may be
occasions where for so many reasons a small patch
of Gharabari kisam land is sold in much higher price
because of the competitive buyers for their respective
needs. Similarly, there can be instances where small
patch of agricultural lands sold in very low price for
the reason of inconvenience in cultivation or high
expenditure in cultivation of that small patch. So,
because small patch of land sold in high rate or low
rate, the valuation of the big patch of land should be
taken into consideration is not a sound logic in all
cases. There cannot be second opinion from the
established truth that population increase and
galloping price, rise of the lands is an important
factor to be taken into consideration while assessing
the market price of the land. As mentioned above, the
existence or position of the land acquired near to
human dwelling or near to irrigation facility also
important factors to be taken into consideration while
assessing the potential value of the land. It is
experienced that the agricultural or low lands near
the human dwelling or village hamlets are being
rapidly converted to homesteads. Implementation of
modern scientific method of cultivation and raising of
new and high yielding cash crops are also very
common to this part of the State where agriculture is
almost only source of income to the major operation of
the population. The petitioners' claim that, their
village Patiguda is an adjoining village
M.Rampur which is a semi urban and fast
growing locality having College, High School,
Courts, Hospital, Block Office, Banks and
Market complexes within its boundary and
situated adjacent to National Highway-217 from
Raipur to Gopalpur and that due to demand of
house site at M.Rampur, he had developed his
acquired land into house site long before
acquisition. In plethora of decision, the Hon'ble
Apex Court has decided that the method of working
out the average price paid under different sale
transactions is not proper and Court should not
recourse to said method. The Hon'ble Apex Court has
further observed that when there are different sale
L.A.A. No.32 of 2017 Page 7 of 10
transactions, the transactions representing highest
value should be preferred to the rest. Reliance can be
placed in the matter of Anjani Malu Dessai Vrs. State
of Goa & another, (2010) Vol.13 SCC Page 710 and in
the matter of Sri Rani M. Viajalakshmamma Rao
Bahadur, Ranee of Vuyyur Vrs. Collector of Madras,
(1969) I MLJ 49 (SC) and in the matter of Meherawal
Vrs. State, CLR [2012] I Page 1006.
In the matter of L.A Collector, Balasore Vrs.
Hemanta Samal & another 2008- (1) CLR-518, it is
held that:-
"Determination of market value of the
acquired land-Claimant proved sale deeds
in support of valuation-Contention that the
sale deeds are got up documents created by
the claimant who was an employee of
DRDO and had prior knowledge about the
acquisition proposal-Other evidence on
record to support the rate of land notes in
the sale deeds-No evidence or circumstance
to show that the documents were created
by playing fraud or that they were
manufactured for the simple purpose of
obtaining higher compensation-No reason
for discarding those documents from
evidence."
One cannot overlook the stiff rise in the market value
of the lands in the recent years. There are many
instances where the market value of agricultural
lands near the human habitation is increasing
virtually everyday.
So when the land is being compulsorily taken
away from a person, he is entitled to the highest
value which similar land in the locality is shown to
have fetched in a bonafide transaction entered in
between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near
about the time of acquisition. The LAO should have
preferred the highest transaction unless there
are strong circumstances justifying a different
course for fixing fair compensation. It is neither
pleaded nor any evidence produced by the OP
that the sale transaction under Ext.1 was not
genuine or the vendor and vendee had colluded
to inflate the value of the land with oblique
motive. Therefore the sale deed vide Ext.1 can
be safely relied. In the instant case, the lands
were acquired for the purpose of construction of
Talijore M.I.P. vide LA case no. 02/09. This court
on a reference has redetermined the market
value of Atta, Mala, Berna and Bahal kissam of
L.A.A. No.32 of 2017 Page 8 of 10
lands of nearby remote interior village
Kushurla acquired vide LA case no. 01/09 @ Rs.
2,13,000/- per acre in LAR No.182 of 2014 of
Prembati Sahu & another by its judgment dated
12.05.2015. So in this circumstance and
considering all the relevant factors, a
pragmatic approach should be adopted in
determining the value of the acquired land.
Keeping in view of the smallness of the plot which
was sold under Ext.1 and deduction towards
development charges and conversion charges of
acquired land into gharbari kissam from land value
in Ext.1 and as such for the interest of justice and
considering all the relevant factors and in
consideration of the location of the acquired land
together with its potential value, it is felt by the court
if a compensation amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees
Four lakh rupees) only for Atta kissam of land per
acre along with other statutory benefits will be
redetermined, then it will be just and reasonable in
the instant case."
(Emphasis supplied)
10. Apart from observing so, the Court below, while
passing the impugned Judgment, has relied upon the
Judgments of the Supreme Court reported in (2010) 13 SCC
710 (Anjani Malu Dessai Vs. State of Goa & another),
(1969) I MLJ 49 (SC) (Sri Rani M. Viajalakshmamma Rao
Bahadur, Ranee of Vuyyur Vs. Collector of Madras),
reported in CLR (2012) I 1006 Meherawal Vs. State), reported
in 2010 LAC (SC) 150 (Commissioner of Income Tax,
Faridabad Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) and reported in
2001(2)LAC (SC) 409 (Sundar Vs. Union of India) so also
L.A.A. No.32 of 2017 Page 9 of 10
Judgment of this Court reported in 2008 (I) CLR 518 (L.A.
Collector, Balasore Vs. Hemanta Samal & another).
11. On perusal of the impugned judgment so also
L.C.R., it is ascertained that there is no infirmity or illegality
in the said Judgment passed in L.A.R. No.150 of 2014 and
the Appeal preferred by the State deserves to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed.
13. In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, the State-
Appellant is directed to implement the Judgment dated
19.01.2016 passed in L.A.R. No.150 of 2014 within a period of
four months from the date of production of the certified copy
of this Judgment.
...............................
S.K. MISHRA, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
Dated the 8th November, 2024/Prasant
Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 11-Nov-2024 17:24:03
