Orissa High Court
Dibakar Biswal vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 21 April, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
LAA No.99 of 2018
In the matter of an Application under
Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
***
1. Dibakar Biswal,
Aged about 64 years
2. Dandadhar Biswal,
Aged about 59 years
3. Tarinisen Biswal,
Aged about 54 years
4. Ratnakar Biswal,
Aged about 49 years,
All are Sons of Late Bundimanta Biswal,
Village/P.O./P.S.: Kamakhyanagar,
District: Dhenkanal. ... Appellants
(Petitioners in
Court below)
-VERSUS-
1. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Angul-Duburi-Sukinda Road,
New B.G. Rail Link Project,
At/P.O./District: Dhenkanal.
LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 1 of 57
2. Ministry of Railway,
Union of India
Represented by
Chief Engineer (Con.)-II,
East Coast Railway, Chandrasekharpur,
Bhubaneswar, District:Khurda.
3. Angul Sukinda Railway Limited
(A company incorporated under
the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956)
having its Office
At Plot No.7622/4706,
Press Chhak,
Gajapati Nagar,
Bhubaneswar - 751 005,
District: Khordha. ... Respondents
(Opposite parties
in Court below)
4. Basudev Biswal,
Aged about 24 years.
5. Sudarsan Biswal,
Aged about 22 years.
6. Gayatri Biswal,
Aged about 27 years,
Sl Nos.4 to 6 are sons and daughter of
Late Sadhu Charan Biswal.
7. Kholana Biswal,
Aged about 54 years,
Wife of Late Sadhu Charan Biswal.
LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 2 of 57
8. Kirtan Biswal,
Aged about 62 years.
9. Rudra Narayan Biswal,
Aged about 49 years,
Sl. No.8 & 9 are Son of
Late Brundaban Biswal
10. Alli Sahoo (dead)
10(a) Ranjan Sahoo,
Aged about 32 years,
Son of Alli Sahoo, Village: Ghantapada,
P.O.: Balanda, P.S.: Thana No.4,
Nandidhua Colony, Talcher,
District: Angul.
11. Kamali Sahoo,
Aged about 64 years,
Daughter of Late Brundaban Biswal,
Wife of Mohan Sahoo,
Village/P.O.: Baisinga,
P.S.: Kamakhyanagar,
District: Dhenkanal.
12. Kumari Biswal,
Aged about 51 years,
Daughter of Late Brundaban Biswal,
Wife of Lalita Behera,
Village/P.O.: Siriguda,
District: Keonjhar.
LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 3 of 57
13. Sarmala Biswal,
Aged about 42 years,
Daughter of Brundaban Biswal.
14. Dukhi Biswal (dead)
15. Rabi Narayan Nayak,
Aged about 74 years.
16. Badani Biswal,
Aged about 69 years.
17. Chanchala Sahoo,
Aged about 44 years,
18. Puspa Sahoo,
Aged about 39 years,
Sl. Nos.15 to 18 are sons and daughters of
Parbati Nayak.
19. Bipin Biswal (dead)
19(a) Urmila Biswal,
Aged about 43 years,
Wife of Bipin Biswal.
19(b) Sornamanjari Biswal,
Aged about 23 years,
Daughter of Bipini Biswal.
19(c) Rinki Biswal,
Aged about 20 years,
Daughter of Bipini Biswal.
LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 4 of 57
20. Bilasini Sahoo,
Aged about 54 years.
21. Binodini Sahoo,
Aged about 46 years.
22. Bini Sahoo,
Aged about 44 years,
Sl.Nos.19 to 22 are sons & daughters of
Uchhaba Biswal.
23. Sadhabani Biswal,
Aged about 84 years,
Wife of Uchhaba Biswal.
24. Ditikrushna Biswal,
Aged about 64 years.
25. Gatikrushna Biswal (dead)
25(a) Lili Biswal,
Aged about 50 years,
Wife of Gatikrushna Biswal.
25(b) Samrudhi Biswal,
Aged about 50 years,
Son of Gatikrushna Biswal.
26. Bedi Biswal (dead)
26(a) Sisir Biswal,
Aged about 67 years,
Daughter of Bedi Biswal.
LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 5 of 57
27. Sumitra Biswal,
Aged about 59 years.
28. Suphala Biswal,
Aged about 54 years,
Sl.Nos.24 to 28 are sons & daughters of
Prafulla Kumar Biswal.
29. Tukuna @ Upeep Biswal,
Aged about 39 years.
30. Sujan @ Sandeep Biswal,
Aged about 44 years.
31. Anjana Biswal,
Aged about 59 years.
32. Alaka Biswal,
Aged about 44 years,
Sl.Nos.29 to 32 are sons & daughters of
Pramod Biswal.
33. Prasad Biswal (dead)
33(a) Sashi Rekha Biswal,
Aged about 42 years,
Daughter of Prasad Biswal.
34. Soudamini Biswal,
Aged about 84 years,
Daughter of Lambodar Biswal.
35. Dayanidhi Biswal (dead)
LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 6 of 57
36. Bhagaban Biswal,
Aged about 76 years.
36(a) Bhanumati Biswal,
Aged about 40 years,
Daughter of Bhagaban Biswal.
36(b) Suresh Biswal,
Aged about 36 years,
Son of Bhagaban Biswal.
37. Bhagyadhar Biswal (dead).
37(a) Amruti Biswal,
Aged about 75 years,
Wife of Bhagyadhar Biswal.
38. Nirupama Biswal,
Aged about 55 years,
Wife of Bhaskar Biswal.
39. Gangadhar Biswal (dead)
39(a) Durga Biswal,
Aged about 60 years,
Son of Gangadhar Biswal.
39(b) Susama Biswal,
Aged about 58 years,
Daughter of Gangadhar Biswal.
40. Sankarsan Biswal,
Aged about 39 years.
LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 7 of 57
41. Mamata Behera,
Aged about 59 years.
42. Babi Biswal,
Aged about 44 years,
Sl.Nos.39 to 42 are sons & daughters of
Gourahari Biswal.
43. Ranjan Sahoo,
Aged about 49 years.
44. Bhajaman Biswal,
Aged about 44 years,
Sl.Nos.43 & 44 are sons of
Chandrika Sahoo.
45. Kula Sahoo,
Aged about 84 years,
Daughter of Pancha Biswal.
46. Dambaru Biswal,
Aged about 74 years,
Sl.Nos.45 & 46 are son of
Late Pravakar Biswal.
47. Chita Biswal (dead).
47(a) Anjali Biswal,
Aged about 45 years,
Wife of Chita Biswal.
LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 8 of 57
47(b) Suvendu Biswal,
Aged about 25 years,
Son of Chita Biswal,
All are of
Village/P.O./P.S.: Kamakhyanagar,
District-Dhenkanal. ...Pro forma
Respondents
(Petitioner Nos.6 to 50
in Court below)
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Appellants : M/s. Niranjan Panda-1 and
Manoj Kumar Panda, Advocates
For the Respondent : Mr. Santosh Kumar Brahma,
No.1 Additional Standing Counsel
For the Respondent : Mr. Satya Sindhu Kashyap,
Nos.2 & 3 Senior Panel Counsel
For Performa Respondent : None
Nos. 4 to 47(b)
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Dates of Hearing : 11.04.2025 and 15.04.2025
::
Date of Judgment : 21.04.2025
LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 9 of 57
J UDGMENT
Aggrieved by Order dated 07.04.2018 of the learned
Senior Civil Judge, Kamakhyanagar in the district of
Dhenkanal, assessing the market value of the land
acquired for the purpose of determining quantum of
award of compensation at Rs.39,10,000/- as against
Rs.25,00,000/- as quantified by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Angul-Duburi-Sukinda Road New
BG Rail Link Project, Dhenkanal in L.A. Misc. Case
No.112 of 2014 under the provisions of Section 18, the
Appellants, persons interested, have preferred this
appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894.
Facts:
2. A Notification No.31513, dated 25.07.2011 under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for
brevity, "LA Act") was published in the Odisha Gazette
No.1808, dated 05.08.2011 for acquisition of land of the
Appellants (Petitioners in Court below) situated at
Mouza: Kamakhyanagar, P.S.: Kamakhyanagar, District:
Dhenkanal bearing Khata No.240, admeasuring an area
of Ac.0.22dec. bearing plot No.1937 of Kissam Sarada-I
for the purpose of Angul-Duburi-Sukinda Road, New
LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 10 of 57
B.G. Rail Link Project, Dhenkanal. Against such
acquisition compensation of an amount of Rs.8,92,386/-
was awarded in favour of the Appellants, considering the
market value of the land at Rs.25,00,000/- per acre.
2.1. Though the Appellants received the awarded amount
under protest as the compensation amount should have
been much more considering the suitability, potential
use of the land and advantageous position of the land
and possible development, objection has been raised
before the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The
compensation amount could not have been determined
based on kissam recorded in the Record-of-Right (RoR).
Objecting to such valuation of the Special Land
Acquisition Officer, the Appellants, being interested
persons, claimed the valuation of the acquired land to be
at Rs.2,50,000/- per decimal prayer was made to refer
the matter for proper assessment of the market price.
2.2. The objection, being referred under Section 18 of the LA
Act to the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge,
Kamakhyanagar in the district of Dhenkanal, registered
as LA Misc. Case No.112 of 2014, came to be disposed of
by Order dated 07.04.2018, with the following
observation and determination:
LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 11 of 57
"14. The reference under Section 18 of the Act is
answered with observation that the market price, as
determined by Special Land Acquisition Officer for
award of compensation against the acquisition of the
land belonging to the petitioners are not adequate
and the market price of that land should have been
Rs.39,10,000/- (Thirty nine lakhs and ten thousand)
instead of Rs.25,00,000/- per acre as was
determined. As such the Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Angul-Duburi-Sukinda Road New B.G. Rail
Link, Project, Dhenkanal is directed to re-determine
the compensation with that enhanced market price
of that land along with other benefits for which the
petitioners being the persons interested are entitled
as per the statute, which includes the solatium. The
differential amount shall be paid to the petitioners
without inordinate delay. The petitioners are also
entitled to get an interest on that differential amount
at the rate of 9% per annum from the date on which
the possession of the lands was taken, for the first
year of possession and then at the rate of 15% till
the date of payment of such excess amount as per
Section 28 of the Act. The cost of the proceeding is
also to be awarded in favour of the petitioners by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer as per reasonable
scale apropos to Section 27 of the Act. As no
reference has been made regarding apportionment of
the amount between the petitioners as persons
interested, that should be made as per the statute.
As such the prayer for specific entitlement of
petitioner Nos.1 to 4 is negated. Similarly, the
LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 12 of 57
prayers for enhanced compensation on the ground of
severance and injurious affection of income are also
rejected in absence of merit."
2.3. Despite direction to re-determine the amount of
compensation at the enhanced market value of the
acquired land by the Senior Civil Judge,
Kamakhyanagar, the Appellants were still aggrieved and
preferred this Appeal under Section 54 of the LA Act for
further enhancement of market price.
Hearing:
3. Notices being issued to the Respondents, Mr. Santosh
Kumar Brahma, learned Additional Standing Counsel
appeared on behalf of Respondent No.1, Mr. Satya
Sindhu Kashyap, learned Senior Panel Counsel,
Government of India for High Court of Orissa entered
appearance for Respondent Nos.2 & 3 and M/s. Susil
Kumar Pattnaik, Saroj Kumar Acharya, Subrat Kumar
Pattnaik and Subraj Kumar Pattanaik, learned
Advocates entered appearance by filing Vakalatama on
behalf of the Pro forma Respondents.
3.1. This matter was taken up on 11.04.2025 and the
counsel for the Appellants advanced arguments.
However, the matter stood adjourned at the request of
LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 13 of 57
the counsel for the respondents for advancing reply
arguments. Accordingly, the appeal is heard further on
15.04.2025.
3.2. None represented the Pro forma Respondents at the time
of hearing.
3.3. Heard Sri Niranjan Panda-1 and Sri Manoj Kumar
Panda, learned Advocates for the Appellants; Sri Santosh
Kumar Brahma, learned Additional Standing Counsel for
Respondent No.1 and Sri Satya Sindhu Kashyap,
learned Senior Panel Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and
3.
3.4. On conclusion of hearing, the matter stood reserved for
preparation and pronouncement of Judgment/Order.
Rival contentions and submissions:
4. Suave submission was advanced by Sri Niranjan Panda-
1, learned Advocate by stating candid facts as emanated
from the memorandum of appeal and also the facts
enumerated in the order of the Reference Court.
4.1. It is urged by learned counsel for the Appellants that
without appreciating the facts in proper perspective the
learned Senior Civil Judge proceeded erroneously on the
LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 14 of 57
basis of kissam of land recorded in the RoR. He
submitted that as the land in question was near to the
State Highway, the evidence on record should have been
appropriately considered by taking into account
potential use of the land for homestead and commercial
purpose instead of kissam of the land recorded in the
RoR.
4.2. It is submitted by Sri Niranjan Panda, learned Advocate
that the acquired land situated barely at a distance of
100 meters from the State Highway connecting
Dhenkanal and Kamakhyanagar.
4.3. Referring to judgment dated 21.03.2023 passed in
Golakha Bihari Das Vrs. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
LAA No.57 of 2015 [challenging the Order dated
30.06.2015 passed in LA Misc. Case No.130 of 2014 by
the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Kamakhyanagar], it is submitted that this Court
enhanced the market price of the land so as to enable
computation of revised compensation amount in respect
of lands in the vicinity of the land in question. In the
said appeal, it has been directed to compute the
compensation by taking into account market value at
Rs.56,41,905/- per acre.
LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 15 of 57
4.4. By furnishing copy of "map" reflecting location of the
land referred to in the present case it is submitted by
counsel for the petitioner that the subject-lands in the
aforesaid referred case situate nearby. He, thus,
essentially submitted that since the land in question
situated adjacent to or nearby the land which was
subject matter of aforesaid referred case, the instant
Appellants-claimants need to be extended with the
similar benefit by determining the amount of
compensation.
5. Sri Satya Sindhu Kashyap, learned Senior Panel Counsel
appearing for Respondent Nos.2 & 3 submitted that on
analysis of evidence on record the learned Reference
Court having applied rational mind in assessing the
value of the land, there is no warrant for this Court to
re-appreciate evidence in absence of any new or fresh
material.
5.1. Taking into consideration comparability of transactions
by virtue of sale deeds with respect to Sarad-I kissam
agricultural land which were of the year 2009, i.e., prior
to acquisition of land in 2011, the Reference Court was
inclined to have reference of the valuation mentioned in
the sale deeds as correct depiction of market value.
LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 16 of 57
Having considered 30% per year increase in the market
value, the learned Senior Civil Judge has made fair
determination at Rs.39,10,000/- per acre for the
purpose of quantification of compensation. Therefore,
there arises no necessity for showing indulgence in this
appeal.
Analysis and discussions:
6. Considered diligently the contentions of both the parties.
By way of written note, Sri Niranjan Panda, learned
Advocate submitted that plot No.1937 which is subject-
land of the instant appeal has been acquired by virtue of
Notification dated 25.07.2011 under Section 4(1) of the
LA Act. Though in LA Misc. Case No.124 of 2013 with
respect to plot No.1913 was valued at Rs.90,00,000/-,
plot No.1915 in L.A. Misc. Case No.127 of 2013 was
valued at the same price, in Golakha Bihari Das Vrs.
Special Land Acquisition Officer, LAA No.57 of 2015, this
Court vide Judgment dated 21.03.2023 confined market
price of plot Nos.1980 and 1981 at Rs.56,41,905/-.
6.1. Sri Niranjan Panda, learned Advocate has cited for
reference Judgment dated 30.06.2015 delivered by the
learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kamakhyanagar in
LA Misc. Case No.130 of 2014, glance at which it
LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 17 of 57
appears the subject land acquired in connection with
Angul-Duburi-Sukinda Road New B.G. Rail Link Project,
Dhenkanal in a reference under Section 18 of the LA Act
was with respect to Plot No.1980 (Sarada-III Kissam) and
Plot No.1981 (Sarada-I Kissam) under Khata No.104(i) of
Mouza: Kamakhyanagar. In the said case, it has been
observed as follows:
"9. Coming to the present case, this Court vide its
Judgment in L.A. Misc. Case Nos.111/2014 (Ext.2)
fixed the market price of lands bearing plot nos.
1946, 1947, 1948, 1949 & 1971 belonging to the
same village and acquired by the same notification
at Rs. 56,41,905 per acre. Similarly in LA. Misc.
Case Nos. 34/2014, (Ext 3) the market price of lands
bearing plot nos. 1951, 1976 & 1977 belonging to
the same village and acquired by the same
notification was fixed at Rs.56,41,505/- per acre.
The present acquired plots bearing nos. 1980
& 1981 are adjacent to each other in east-west
direction. Plot No.1977 is situated on the
adjoining west of plot No. 1981 as would be
evident from Ext. 1. Plot No. 1976 is on the
adjacent west of plot No. 1977. Similarly plot
No.1971 is situated just two to three plots
away from plot No. 1980 & 1981, whereas plot
No. 1947, 1948 & 1949 are also located in a
close vicinity of the present acquired plots. The
situation, potentiality and advantage of these plots
are similar to each other. All the plots are located
LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 18 of 57
near to each other in a compact patch and being
used for the same agricultural and allied purposes.
All these plots are acquired for the same purpose
and by the same notification Plot No. 1971 & 1977
are of Sarada-III kissam like the present acquired
plot No. 1980. The Court has already enhanced
the market price of plot No. 1947, 1948, 1971,
1976 & 1977 to Rs.56,41,905/- per acre vide
Ext.2 & Ext.3. It is not the case of the opposite
party that the judgment of this Court vide Ext.2 &
Ext.3 has been set aside by any higher forum.
Therefore in my opinion the plot bearing No.
1980 & 1981 should fetch the same market
price as that of plot No.1947, 1948, 1971,
1976 and 1977, i.e., at Rs.56,41,905/- per
acre."
6.2. Said Order of the Reference Court being assailed before
this Court in LAA No.57 of 2015 (Golakha Bihari Das Vrs.
Special Land Acquisition Officer) the same got dismissed
by Judgment dated 21.03.2023, which runs as follows:
"1. Though the matter is listed under the heading Fresh
Admission, on consent of the learned Counsel for the
Parties, matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. The present Appeal has been preferred against the
judgment dated 30th June, 2015 passed in L.A.
Misc. Case 130 of 2014, vide which the prayer of the
present Appellant (Petitioner before the court below),
was partially allowed by enhancing the
LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 19 of 57
compensation amount of the suit land to
Rs.56,41,905/-, instead of Rs.25,00,000/- per acre
for Sarad-I kissam land and Rs.14,00,000/- per
acre for Sarad-II kissam land, though the claim of
the present Appellant was the market price of the
acquired land ought to have been Rs.2.5 lakh per
acre.
3. Heard Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the Appellant,
so also Mr. Rout, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for
the State-Respondent.
4. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the Appellant
submits that though copy of the judgment passed by
the court below in L.A. Misc. Case No.127 of 2014
was exhibited before the court below to prove that
the awarded compensation amount in the said case
pertaining to similar kissam land was
Rs.90,000,00/- per acre, the court below, without
considering the said judgment (Ext.4), partially
allowed the claim of the Appellant and determined
the compensation amount to be @ Rs. 56,41,905/-
per acre. He further submits that there were 100
number of trees over the acquired land. To
substantiate the said claim, though evidence was
led before the court below, it failed to take note of
the said evidence on record.
5. Mr. Rout, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the
State Respondent submits that there is no infirmity
in the impugned judgment as the court below, after
taking note of the pleadings on record, so also the
LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 20 of 57
documentary and oral evidence, has passed a
reasoned Order also taking note of Ext.4 in
Paragraph-10 of the impugned judgment. He further
submits that though the Land Acquisition Officer
determined market price of Sarad-I kissam land at
Rs.25,00,000/- per acre and Sarad-III kissam land
at Rs.14,00,000/-, the court below enhanced/
determined the said amount at Rs.56,41,905/- per
acre at par for acquisition of different kissams of
land i.e. Sarad-I and Sarad-III.
Mr. Rout, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the
State Respondent further submits that, so far as the
compensation for the trees, as claimed by the
Appellant, the court below, in Paragraph-10 of the
said judgment, has specifically dealt with the said
claim stating therein that the Appellant made a bald
statement that there were 105 numbers of trees of
different variety over the acquired land and there is
no specific statement as to number and size of each
variety, so also no other supported document
regarding the number and size of the trees.
On being asked, Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the
Appellant fails to demonstrate before this Court as to
the evidence led by the Appellant before the court
below to substantiate the said claim regarding 105
trees of different variety allegedly existing over the
acquired land.
Mr. Rout, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the
State Respondent further draws attention of this
LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 21 of 57
Court to Paragraphs-9 and 10 of the impugned
judgment, which are reproduced below:
„9. Coming to the present case, this Court vide
its Judgment in L.A. Misc. Case
Nos.111/2014(Ext.2) fixed the market
price of lands bearing plot Nos.1946,
1947, 1948,1949 and 1971 belonging to
the same village and acquired by the same
notification, at Rs.56,41,905/- per acre.
Similarly in L.A. Misc. Case
Nos.34/2014(Ext.3) the market price of lands
bearing plot nos.1951, 1976 & 1977 belonging
to the same village and acquired by the same
notification was fixed at Rs.56,41,905/- per
acre. The present acquired plots bearing
nos.1980 & 1981 are adjacent to each other in
east-west direction. Plot No.1977 is situated on
the adjoining west of plot No.1981 as would be
evident from Ext.1. Plot No.1976 is on the
adjacent west of plot No.1977. Similarly plot
No.1971 is situated just two to three plots
away from plot No.1980 & 1981, whereas plot
No.1947, 1948 and 1949 are also located in a
close vicinity of the present acquired plots. The
situation, potentiality and advantage of these
plots are similar to each other. All the plots are
located near to each other in a compact patch
and being used for the same agricultural and
allied purposes. All these plots are acquired for
the same purpose and by the same notification.
Plot No.1971 & 1977 are Sarada-I kissam as
LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 22 of 57
like the present acquired plot No.1981.
Similarly plot No.1947, 1948 & 1976 are of
Sarada-III kissam like the present acquired plot
No.1980. This Court has already enhanced the
market price of plot No.1947, 1948, 1971, 1976
and 1977 to Rs.56,41,905/- per acre vide Ext.2
and Ext.3. It is not the case of the opp. party
that the judgment of this Court vide Ext.2 &
Ext. 3 has been set aside by any higher forum.
Therefore in my opinion the plot bearing
No.1980 & 1981 should fetch the same market
price as that of plot No.1947, 1948, 1971, 1976
& 1977, i.e. at Rs.56,41,905/- per acre.
10. The petitioner has also relied on the judgment
delivered in L.A. Misc. Case No.127/2014
wherein land bearing plot No.1915 was
awarded compensation at the rate of
Rs.90,000,00/- per acre. But that land is a
road side land abutting to the
Kamakhyanagar-Dhenkanal State Highway.
Therefore, the potentiality of plot No.1915
cannot be compared with the present acquired
plots which are mere agricultural lands.
Regarding the trees, the petitioner made a bald
statement that there were 105 number of tress
of different variety over the acquired lands. But
the statement is not specific as to the number
and size of each variety. Barring the bald
statement, there is no other supporting
evidence regarding the number and size of the
trees. Therefore in my opinion the petitioner is
LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 23 of 57
not entitled for any higher compensation in
respect of the trees. Hence ordered.‟
6. In view of the said findings of the court below, so
also taking note of the submissions made by the
learned Counsel for the Parties, this Court is of the
view that there is no infirmity in the impugned
judgment deserving interference by this Court.
7. Accordingly, the LAA stands dismissed."
6.3. It is, thus, contended that the subject-land being plot
No.1937 under Khata No.240, being adjacent to or in the
vicinity of plot numbers under consideration of aforesaid
referred case, the valuation of the land in the present
case should at least fetch Rs.56,41,905/- per acre.
6.4. Scrutiny of the map, which is furnished by the learned
Counsel for the Appellants during the course of hearing,
it is found that the land in question, i.e., Plot No.1937 in
the present appeal is situated nearby Plot No.1980 and
1981. The valuation of lands discussed in LAA No.57 of
2015 with respect to Plot No.1980 and 1981 have been
determined at Rs.56,41,905/- per acre.
6.5. Scanning through the Reference Court Record, it does
not reveal that such map was produced for consideration
of evidence. Furthermore, the learned Civil Judge (Senior
Division) had no occasion to have for reference the
LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 24 of 57
Judgment dated 21.03.2023 rendered by this Court in
LAA No.57 of 2015 (Golakha Bihari Das Vrs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer) at the time of disposal of LA Misc.
Case No.112 of 2014 on 07.04.2018.
7. This Court now, therefore, would examine whether the
earlier reference cases can be the basis for consideration
in the later cases?
7.1. To answer this question, it deserves to have regard to
what is spelt out in Manoj Kumar Vrs. State of Haryana,
(2018) 13 SCC 96. The observation of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court was:
"13. The awards and judgment in the cases of others not
being inter partes are not binding as precedents.
Recently, we have seen the trend of the courts
to follow them blindly probably under the
misconception of the concept of equality and
fair treatment. The courts are being swayed away
and this approach in the absence of and similar
nature and situation of land is causing more
injustice and tantamount to giving equal treatment in
the case of unequals. As per situation of a village,
nature of land, its value differ from distance to
distance, even two to three kilometre distance may
also make the material difference in valui. Land
abutting highway may fetch higher value but not
land situated in interior villages.
LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 25 of 57
14. The previous awards/judgments are the only piece
of evidence on a par with comparative sale
transactions. The similarity of the land covered
by previous judgment/award is required to be
proved like any other comparative exemplar. In
case previous award/judgment is based on
exemplar, which is not similar or acceptable,
previous award/judgment of court cannot be said to
be binding. Such determination has to be
outrightly rejected. In case some mistake has
been done in awarding compensation, it cannot be
followed; on the ground of parity an illegality cannot
be perpetuated. Such award/judgment would be
wholly irrelevant.
15. There is yet another serious infirmity seen in
following the judgment or award passed in
acquisition made before 10 to 12 years and price is
being determined on that basis by giving either flat
increase or cumulative increase as per the choice of
individual Judge without going into the factual
scenario. The said method of determining
compensation is available only when there is
absence of sale transaction before issuance of
notification under Section 4 of the Act and for giving
annual increase, evidence should reflect that price of
land had appreciated regularly and did not remain
static. The recent trend for last several years
indicates that price of land is more or less static if it
has not gone down. At present, there is no
appreciation of value. Thus, in our opinion, it is not a
very safe method of determining compensation.
LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 26 of 57
16. To base determination of compensation on a
previous award/judgment, the evidence
considered in the previous judgment/award
and its acceptability on judicial parameters
has to be necessarily gone into, otherwise,
gross injustice may be caused to any of the
parties. In case some gross mistake or illegality has
been committed in previous award/judgment of not
making deduction, etc. and/or sufficient evidence
had not been adduced and better evidence is
adduced in case at hand, previous award/judgment
being not inter partes cannot be followed and if
land is not similar in nature in all aspects it
has to be outrightly rejected as done in the
case of comparative exemplars. Sale deeds are
on a par for evidentiary value with such awards of
the court as court bases its conclusions on such
transaction only, to ultimately determine the value of
the property.
17. To rely upon judgment/award in case it does
not form part of evidence recorded by the
Reference Court, an application under Order
XLI, Rule 27 is to be filed to adduce evidence
and if it is allowed, opposite party has to be
given opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal.
The award/judgment cannot be taken into
consideration while hearing arguments unless they
form part of evidence in the case. A three-Judge
Bench of this Court has considered the value of
previous award and sale exemplar in City
Improvement Trust Board Vrs. H. Narayanaiah,
LAA No.99 of 2018 Page 27 of 57
(1976) 4 SCC 9; the judgment of the Court was
accepted as relevant evidence under Order 41 Rule
27 by the High Court, though, appeal was pending
against it. This Court held that there could be
no res judicata. In such cases, as the previous
judgment was not inter partes, the opposite
party was not given opportunity by the High
Court to show that land was different. The
decision of the High Court was held to be against the
provisions of the Evidence Act, which regulate
admissibility of all evidence including judgments.
Such judgments are in personam. This Court has
observed:
„26. It is apparent that Section 43 enacts that
judgments other than those falling under
Sections 40 to 42 are irrelevant unless they fall
under some other provision of the Evidence Act;
and, even if they do fall under any such other
provision, all that is relevant, under Section 43
of the Evidence Act, is "the existence" of such
judgment, order, or decree, provided it „is a fact
in issue, or is relevant under some other
provision of this Act‟. An obvious instance of
such other provision is a judgment falling
under Section 13 of the Evidence Act. The
illustration to Section 13 of the Evidence Act
indicates the kind of facts on which the
existence of judgments may be relevant.
27. In LAO Vrs. Lakhamsi Ghelabhai, 1959 SCC
OnLine Bom 32 = AIR 1960 Bom 78 Shelat, J.
held that judgments not inter partes, relating to
land acquired are not admissible merely
because the land dealt with in the judgment
was situated near the land of which the value
is to be determined. It was held there that such
judgments would fall neither under Section 11
nor under Section 13 of the Evidence Act.
Questions relating to value of particular pieces
of land depend upon the evidence in the
particular case in which those facts are proved.
They embody findings or opinions relating to
facts in issue and investigated in different
cases. The existence of a judgment would not
prove the value of some piece of land not dealt
with at all in the judgment admitted in
evidence. Even slight differences in
situation can, sometimes, cause
considerable differences in value. We do
not think it necessary to take so
restrictive a view of the provisions of
Sections 11 and 13 of the Evidence Act as
to exclude such judgments altogether from
evidence even when good grounds are
made out for their admission. In Khaja
Fizuddin Vrs. State of A.P., Civil Appeal No.
176 of 1962, decided on 10.04.1963 (SC), a
Bench of three Judges of this Court held such
judgments to be relevant if they relate to
similarly situated properties and contain
determinations of value on dates fairly
proximate to the relevant date in a case.
28. The Karnataka High Court had, however, not
complied with provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of
the CPC which require that an appellate court
should be satisfied that the additional evidence
is required to enable it either to pronounce
judgment or for any other substantial cause. It
had recorded no reasons to show that it had
considered the requirements of Rule 27 Order
41 of the CPC. We are of opinion that the High
Court should have recorded its reasons to
show why it found the admission of such
evidence to be necessary for some substantial
reason. And if it found it necessary to admit it,
an opportunity should have been given to the
appellant to rebut any inference arising from its
existence by leading other evidence.
29. The result is that we allow these appeals
and set aside the judgment and order of
the Karnataka High Court and direct it to
decide the cases afresh on evidence on
record, so as to determine the market
value of the land acquired on the date of
the notification under Section 16 of the
Bangalore Act. It will also decide the
question, after affording parties
opportunities to lead necessary evidence,
whether the judgment, sought to be
offered as additional evidence, could be
admitted.‟
18. This Court has clearly laid down that such
judgment/award cannot be received in evidence and
considered without giving an opportunity of rebuttal
to opposite parties by adducing evidence. At the
stage of appeal if award/judgment has to be
read in evidence, an application has to be filed
under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code to take
additional evidence on record and if allowed,
opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal has to
be allowed.
19. In Printers House (P) Ltd. Vrs. Saiyadan, (1994) 2
SCC 133, a three-Judge Bench of this Court had
considered the value of previous awards and sale
exemplar to be similar. It observed:
„16. If the comparable sales or previous awards are
more than one, whether the average price
fetched by all the comparable sales should
form the "price basis" for determination of the
market value of the acquired land or the price
fetched by the nearest or closest of the
comparable sales should alone form the "price
basis" for determination of the market value of
the acquired land, being the real point requiring
our consideration here, we shall deal with it.
When several sale deeds or previous awards
are produced in court as evidence of
comparable sales, court has to necessarily
examine every sale or award to find out as to
what is the land which is the subject of sale or
award and as to what is the price fetched by
its sale or by the award made therefor.
17. If the sale is found to be a genuine one or the
award is an accepted one, and the sale or
award pertains to land which was sold or
acquired at about the time of publication of
preliminary notification under the Act in respect
of the acquired land, the market value of which
has to be determined, the court has to mark the
location and the features (advantages and
disadvantages) of the land covered by the sale
or the award. This process involves the
marking by court of the size, shape,
tenure, potentiality, etc. of the land.
Keeping in view the various factors
marked or noticed respecting the land
covered by the sale or award, as the case
may be, presence or absence of such
factors, degree of presence or degree of
absence of such factors in the acquired
land the market value of which has to be
determined, should be seen. When so seen,
if it is found that the land covered by the sale
or award, as the case may be, is almost
identical with the acquired land under
consideration, the land under the sale or the
market value determined for the land in the
award could be taken by the court as the price
basis" for determining the market value of the
acquired land under consideration. If there are
more comparable sales or awards of the same
type, no difficulty arises since the price basis"
to be got from them would be common. But,
difficulty arises when the comparable sales or
awards are not of the same kind and when
each of them furnish a different "price basis.
This difficulty cannot be overcome by averaging
the prices fetched by all the comparable sales
or awards for getting the "price basis" on
which the market value of the acquired land
could be determined. It is so, for the obvious
reason that such "price basis" may vary
largely depending even on comparable sales or
awards. Moreover, "price basis" got by
averaging comparable sales or awards which
are not of the same kind, cannot be correct
reflection of the price which the willing seller
would have got from the willing buyer, if the
acquired land had been sold in the market. For
instance, in the case on hand, there are three
claimants. The plots of their acquired land,
which are five in number, are not similar, in
that, their location, size, shape vary greatly.
One plot of land of one claimant and another
plot of another claimant appear to be of one
type. Another plot of land of one of them
appears to be of a different type. Yet another
plot of the second of them appears to be
different. Insofar as third claimant's plot of
land is concerned, it appears to be altogether
different from the rest. Therefore, if each of the
claimants were to sell her/his respective plots
of land in the open market, it is impossible to
think that they would have got a uniform rate
for their lands. The position cannot be
different if the comparable sales or
awards when relate to different lands.
Therefore, when there are several
comparable sales or awards pertaining to
different lands, what is required of the
court is to choose that sale or award
relating to a land which closely or nearly
compares with the plot of land the market
value of which it has to determine, and to
take the price of land of such sale or
award as the basis for determining the
market value of the land under
consideration.‟
20. In Karan Singh Vrs. Union of India, (1997) 8 SCC
186, this Court held that evidence has to be
adduced to show similarity of the land in
question to the one covered by previous
award/judgment. This Court observed:
„8. The learned counsel for the appellants then
urged that the High Court erroneously
discarded Ext. A-11 which was an award in
respect of a land at Village Jhilmil Tahirpur on
the ground that it was not a previous judgment
of the Court. The land comprised in the award
was acquired under Notification issued under
Section 4 of the Act on 27.07.1981. By the said
award, the Court awarded compensation @
Rs.625 per sq yd. It has earlier been seen that
in the present case the notification issued
under Section 4 of the Act was earlier in point
of time than the notification issued for
acquisition of land comprised in Ext. A-11.
There is no quarrel with the proposition that
judgments of courts in land acquisition cases or
awards given by the Land Acquisition Officers
can be relied upon as a good piece of evidence
for determining the market value of the land
acquired under certain circumstances. One of
the circumstances being that such an award or
judgment of the court of law must be a previous
judgment. In Pal Singh Vrs. State (UT of
Chandigarh), (1992) 4 SCC 400, it was
observed thus:
„5. ...But what cannot be overlooked is, that for
a judgment relating to value of land to be
admitted in evidence either as an instance
or as one from which the market value of the
acquired land could be inferred or deduced,
must have been a previous judgment of court
and as an instance, it must have been
proved by the person relying upon such
judgment by adducing evidence aliunde that
due regard being given to all attendant facts
and circumstances, it could furnish the basis
for determining the market value of the
acquired land.‟
Following this decision, we hold that it is only
the previous judgment of a court or an award
which can be made the basis for assessment of
the market value of the acquired land subject
to party relying on such judgment to adduce
evidence for showing that due regard being
given to all attendant facts it could form the
basis for fixing the market value of acquired
land.‟
21. In Ranvir Singh Vrs. Union of India, (2005) 12 SCC
59, this Court considered value of previous
judgment/award and held that it is only piece of
evidence. There cannot be fixed criteria for
determining compensation at any fixed rate,
observing that:
„36. Furthermore, a judgment or award determining
the amount of compensation is not conclusive.
The same would merely be a piece of evidence.
There cannot be any fixed criteria for
determining the increase in the value of land at
a fixed rate. We, therefore, are unable to accept
the contention of Mr. Nariman that as in one
case we have fixed the valuation at Rs 7000
per bigha wherein the lands were acquired in
the year 1961, applying the rule of escalation
the market rate should be determined by
calculating the increase in the prices @ 12%
p.a. We do not find any justifiable reason to
base our decision only on the said criterion.‟
22. A three-Judge Bench in Mysore Urban Development
Authority Vrs. Sakamma, (2010) 14 SCC 503 has
observed in absence of evidence as to comparable
land, award/judgment in another case cannot be
accepted. This Court held:
„8. There is no evidence to show that the acquired
lands at Keragalli and Maragowdanahalli are
comparable lands with similar market value.
The distance, the extent of development and
the facilities available in the two villages make
it clear that the award made by the Reference
Court with reference to an acquisition in
Maragowdanahalli Village cannot be the basis
for determining the market value for the lands
at Keragalli.
9. We are of the view that the Reference Court
and the High Court committed a serious error
in relying upon the judgment (Ext. P-2) relating
to Maragowdanahalli, to determine the market
value of lands at Keragalli. If Ext. P-2 is
excluded, we find that there is no evidence to
determine the market value, as the only other
document relied upon by the landowners was
a sale transaction of 2007 which being nearly
one decade after the acquisition, is not of any
assistance. We also find that no evidence has
been let in by the appellant in regard to the
market value though the award of the Land
Acquisition Officer refers to sale transactions
during 1997-1998 showing a value of
Rs.2,50,000 per acre in Keragalli. But those
sale deeds were not produced.
10. We are also told that the reference cases in
regard to several other lands under the same
acquisition are still pending before the
Reference Court and some cases are pending
in the High Court. In the absence of any
acceptable evidence, it is not possible for us to
determine the market value. It would appear
that sale transactions relating to 1996-1998 for
lands near to acquired lands are available but
not produced. Some of them are now produced
by the appellant. We cannot obviously rely
upon them as they are produced for the first
time in this Court and the landowners did not
have an opportunity to have their say in regard
to such transactions by letting evidence.
Interests of justice, therefore, requires that the
matter should be remanded.‟
23. Basic principle before following award/judgment or
comparative sales is that land should be comparable
in nature and quality as laid down in State of M.P.
Vrs. Kashiram, (2010) 14 SCC 506 and Hirabai Vrs.
LAO, (2010) 10 SCC 492 and in close proximity of
time to preliminary notification under Section 4 of the
Act. In the instant case, we hold that the High Court
could not have followed the judgment in a blind
manner as done without due consideration of
various aspects.
***
25. This Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vrs. LAO,
(1988) 3 SCC 751 has laid down broad principles to
be followed in the case of determination of
compensation thus:
„4. The following factors must be etched on the
mental screen:
(1) A reference under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the
award and the court cannot take into account
the material relied upon by the Land
Acquisition Officer in his award unless the
same material is produced and proved before
the court.
(2) So also the award of the Land Acquisition
Officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the
trial court open or exposed to challenge before
the court hearing the reference. It is merely an
offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and
the material utilised by him for making his
valuation cannot be utilised by the court unless
produced and proved before it. It is not the
function of the court to sit in appeal against the
award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or
correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the
conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition
Officer, as if it were an appellate court.
(3) The court has to treat the reference as an
original proceeding before it and determine the
market value afresh on the basis of the
material produced before it.
(4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who
has to show that the price offered for his land
in the award is inadequate on the basis of the
materials produced in the court. Of course the
materials placed and proved by the other side
can also be taken into account for this purpose.
(5) The market value of land under acquisition has
to be determined as on the crucial date of
publication of the notification under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act (dates of notifications
under Sections 6 and 9 are irrelevant).
(6) The determination has to be made standing on
the date line of valuation (date of publication of
notification under Section 4) as if the valuer is
a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase
land from the open market and is prepared to
pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has
also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to
sell the land at a reasonable price.
(7) In doing so by the instances method, the court
has to correlate the market value reflected in
the most comparable instance, which provides
the index of market value.
(8) Only genuine instances have to be taken into
account. (Sometimes instances are rigged up in
anticipation of acquisition of land.)
(9) Even post-notification instances can be taken
into account (1) if they are very proximate, (2)
genuine, and (3) the acquisition itself has not
motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price
on account of the resultant improvement in
development prospects.
(10) The most comparable instances out of the
genuine instances have to be identified on the
following considerations:
(i) proximity from time angle,
(ii) proximity from situation angle.
(11) Having identified the instances which provide
the index of market value, the price reflected
therein may be taken as the norm and the
market value of the land under acquisition may
be deduced by making suitable adjustments
for the plus and minus factors vis-à-vis land
under acquisition by placing the two in
juxtaposition.
(12) A balance sheet of plus and minus factors may
be drawn for this purpose and the relevant
factors may be evaluated in terms of price
variation as a prudent purchaser would do.
(13) The market value of the land under acquisition
has thereafter to be deduced by loading the
price reflected in the instance taken as norm
for plus factors and unloading it for minus
factors.
(14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13)
has to be undertaken in a common sense
manner, as a prudent man of the world of
business would do. We may illustrate some
such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors:
Plus factor Minus factor
1 Smallnss of size 1. Largeness of size
2 Proximity to a road 2. Situation in the interior at
a distance from the road
3 Frontage on a road 3 Narrow strip of land with
very small frontage
compared to depth
4 Nearness to developed 4 Lower level requiring the
area depressed portion to be
filled up
5 Regular shape 5 Remoteness from
developed locality
6 Level vis-à-vis land under 6 Some special
acquisition disadvantageous factor
which would deter a
purchaser
7 Special value for an
owner of an adjoining
property to whom it may
have some very special
advantage
(15) The evaluation of these factors of course depends on
the facts of each case. There cannot be any hard-
and-fast or rigid rule. Common sense is the best and
most reliable guide. For instance, take the factor
regarding the size. A building plot of land say 500 to
1000 sq yds cannot be compared with a large tract
or block of land of say 10,000 sq yds or more. Firstly
while a smaller plot is within the reach of many, a
large block of land will have to be developed by
preparing a lay out, carving out roads, leaving open
space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for
purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be
blocked up) and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The
factor can be discounted by making a deduction by
way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging
approximately between 20% to 50% to account for
land required to be set apart for carving out lands
and plotting out small plots. The discounting will to
some extent also depend on whether it is a rural
area or urban area, whether building activity is
picking up, and whether waiting period during
which the capital of the entrepreneur would be
locked up, will be longer or shorter and the
attendant hazards.
(16) Every case must be dealt with on its own fact
pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a
prudent purchaser of land in which position the
Judge must place himself.
(17) These are general guidelines to be applied with
understanding informed with common sense.‟ ***"
7.2. A reference to CESC Ltd. Vrs. Sandhya Rani Barik, (2008)
10 SCR 137, as has been referred to in the referral
judgment impugned herein, may be significant. In the
said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India laid down
the approach of the Court with regard to assessment of
valuation as follows:
"16. The armchair assessment of land value has to
proceed with common sense and circumspection.
One should attempt to find out the just and
reasonable compensation without attempting any
mathematical precision in that regard. For the
purpose of assessing compensation, the efforts
should be to find out the price fixed for the similar
land in the vicinity.
17. The difference in the land acquired and the land
sold might take on various aspects. One plot of land
might be larger, another small, one plot of land might
have a large frontage and another might have none.
There might be difference in land development and
location. There might be special features which have
to be taken note of and reasonably considered in the
matter of assessing compensation.
18. Where a very large plot of land has been acquired
and the comparison is sought to be made with a
comparatively small piece of land which has been
sold or otherwise dealt with, then in that event, a
percentage of the price is to be knocked off because
of the largeness itself of the acquired land.
Accordingly, the High Court made the deductions.
The High Court also dealt with the question of land
locking and held that it was a special feature which
had to be taken note of."
7.3. This Court takes note of following discussion in the case
of Ravinder Kumar Goel Vrs. State of Haryana, (2023) 3
SCR 912:
„9. *** From the records, it is pointed out that as
contended on behalf of the parties, the sale
exemplars were brought on record to aid the Court to
determine the market value, the consideration of
which was required to be made to arrive at an
appropriate market value.
10. While adverting to this aspect of the matter what is
necessary to be noted is that the Reference Court
before appreciating the evidence, has kept in view
the parameters laid down by this Court while
considering a reference for the purpose of
determining the market value of the acquired lands
to arrive at the just compensation. Since the sale
exemplars had been placed by the rival parties
before the Reference Court, in order to take the same
into consideration, the Reference Court has in fact
taken note of the decision of this Court in State of
Gujarat Vrs. Kakhot SinghJi VajesinghJi Vaghela,
(1968) 3 SCR 692. This Court had enunciated the
principle that the price agreed between a
willing seller and a willing purchaser would be
the price which is generally prevailing in the
market in respect of the lands having similar
advantages which can be the basis to
determine the market value of acquired lands
if such sale instances are brought on record.
11. Further, the Reference Court had also kept in view
the decision of this Court in Atma Singh (Dead)
through Lrs. and Ors. Vrs. State of Haryana and
Anr., (2008) 2 SCC 568 wherein it is held that the
sale instances of small pieces of land cannot be
ignored while determining the compensation for a
large extent of land acquired. The rule of
deduction on development charges would not
be uniformly applicable was also taken into
consideration. It is in that light, the Reference
Court has placed reliance on the document at Ex.PX
dated 07.12.2004 relied upon by the land losers.
Under the said document, an extent of 5 Marlas was
sold in Sultanpur i.e. the area which is the subject
matter of these appeals, for the sale consideration of
Rs.1,05,000/- which would amount to
Rs.33,60,000/- per acre. On reckoning the said
value of land, the Reference Court deducted 35 per
cent of the same towards development charges and
thereafter added the escalation for 35 days being
the difference of the period between the date of the
said sale deed and the date of the preliminary
notification. It is on the said basis that the market
value of Rs. 22,00,754/- per acre was arrived at by
the Reference Court. 12. From the judgment of the
Reference Court it is noted that the sale exemplars
which were relied upon by the respondent-HSIIDC at
Ex.R5/R12, Ex.R6, Ex.R9, Ex.R13 to Ex.R16 were
discarded since they depict the market value of the
land which is lower than the amount awarded by
the Collector. To that extent, the reason assigned by
the Reference Court is not justified. The documents
would have to be taken into consideration, to
decide as to whether the lands are comparable
and, on the determination, if the conclusion is that
they are comparable but the market value depicted
is lesser than what is awarded by the SLAO and if
there is no other document to indicate a higher
market value, it would be open for the Reference
Court to confirm the award of the LAO being more
beneficial to the land losers.
13. Therefore, since we have already indicated that the
High Court was not justified in merely relying on the
circular fixing the floor rates when other evidence
was available on the record pursuant to the remand
made, it is necessary for us to take note as to
whether the Reference Court had committed an error
in not relying on the sale exemplars produced by the
respondents without analysing the comparability.
The position of law is well settled that when
large extent of lands are acquired and if the
sale exemplar, also for the large extent is
available on record it would be safer to rely on
the same if they are comparable transactions.
However, as already noted above, this Court in
Atma Singh (supra) has also held that the sale
instances of smaller extents cannot be ignored.
Further, this Court has reiterated in many cases that
the sale exemplars for smaller extent can be relied
upon subject to appropriate deduction being
provided towards development charges.
14. In the instant case, though the acquisition
Notification dated 11.01.2005 was issued in respect
of the large extent of lands measuring 798 Kanals
and 2 Marlas, the extent of lands which were
owned by majority of land losers is a small
extent. In fact, the details indicated in the judgment
dated 10.01.2020 passed by the Reference Court
has referred to about 69 appellants who were before
it. Therefore, the extent to which each of the
appellants is claiming compensation is a smaller
extent. In that background, if the documents
relied on by the respondents at Ex.R5 to R16
are noted, the largest extent sold is under
Ex.R16 being 32 Kanals and 16 Marlas, while
the least being under Ex.R8 measuring 3
Kanals and 8 Marlas. We have referred to this
aspect of the matter to indicate that while
approving the procedure for placing reliance
on the sale deeds of earlier sale transactions
as exemplars, this Court starting from the case
of Kakhot SinghJi Vajesinghji Vaghela (supra)
and several other cases has emphasized that
the basis for the same is that the value under
such exemplars would represent the sale
consideration agreed upon between a willing
seller and a willing purchaser and therefore
would represent the true market value.
15. If the above-referred concept is kept in perspective,
one cannot loose sight of the fact that when large
extent of agricultural land is sold under a document
and if the land is to be used for agricultural purpose,
the price agreed thereto would be based on the
nature of the land and the purpose for which it is put
to use. In cases, where the large extent of
agricultural land belonging to a single owner is
acquired, it would no doubt be safe to rely on such
sale exemplars of large extents, more particularly, in
circumstances where the land which is classified as
agricultural land is also used for agricultural
purposes. In such circumstances, to arrive at the
market value depending on the nature of the
cultivation, the capitalisation method by applying the
multiplier to the crop pattern and price derived can
be adopted and the market value be determined or
determine the market value based on such sale
deeds which are comparable exemplars.
16. However, the difficulty arises when a person holds a
smaller extent of land which is classified as
agricultural land but would have lost its character
due to non-cultivation and urbanization when such
land is more eminent and fit to be used for non-
agricultural purposes. It is in that circumstance,
such land though classified as agricultural will have
to be treated as a land having non-agricultural
potential more particularly for urban use. In that
light, in appropriate cases depending on the location
and the extent of land held by each of the land
losers who is a part of the same acquisition, is
required to be kept in view, while applying the
yardstick to reckon the appropriate exemplar and
arrive at the ultimate conclusion. Therefore, there
can be no strait jacket formula that when the
sale deeds for the sale of large extent are
available and large extent of lands are
acquired that alone should be reckoned as the
exemplar. What is material is its
comparability, which would depend on case to
case basis and that is for the Court to analyze
based on the evidence available on record."
7.4. In absence of any material placed by the Appellants
herein with respect to comparability of subject-lands
with the lands under discussion before this Court as
found place in the Judgment dated 21.03.2023 passed
in Golakha Bihari Das Vrs. Special Land Acquisition
Officer, LAA No.57 of 2015 [challenging the Order dated
30.06.2015 passed in LA Misc. Case No.130 of 2014 by
the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Kamakhyanagar], mere reliance on copy of a "map" as
additional evidence without support of a petition under
Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
cannot allude to be an evidence in favour of the
Appellants by holding that the lands in both the cases
have passed the tests laid down in catena of decisions of
Courts. Given the circumstances, it is imperfect to
accept the argument presented by the learned counsel
for the Appellants that the lands in question should be
valued at the market rate of Rs.56,41,905/- per acre, as
they are located near the lands mentioned in land
acquisition appeal [LAA No. 57 of 2015], where the
market price was established at Rs.56,41,905/- per
acre. Without discharging burden of proof to justify such
an argument advanced on behalf of the Appellants, it is
not prudent to jump to the conclusion that since market
price of the subject-lands in LAA No. 57 of 2015 was
established at Rs.56,41,905/- per acre, the lands in its
proximity should also be valued at par. Therefore, it
requires further investigation into the nature of land by
applying the tests and parameters emanating from
various judgments to assess the market price of the
lands for arriving at apt conclusion.
Conclusion:
8. On perusal of the Order dated 07.04.2018 passed in LA
Misc. Case No.112 of 2014 by the learned Senior Civil
Judge, Kamakhyanagar, it is perceived that
determination of market value was made at
Rs.39,10,100/- taking note of the fact that the
Appellants have not filed sale deeds pertaining to
agricultural lands contemporaneous to the acquisition
and the argument of Additional Government Pleader that
no document has been filed from the side of the
petitioners that the acquired land situates in close
vicinity of the properties thus alienated".
8.1. The Appellants sought to place reliance on a "map",
which did not form part of the Record of the Reference
Court, showing that the subject-plot is situated nearby/
adjacent to the lands under discussion in LAA No.57 of
2015 before this Court with respect to Notification dated
25.07.2011 issued under Section 4(1) of the LA Act. This
Court cannot be oblivious of ruling that "to rely upon
judgment/award in case it does not form part of
evidence recorded by the Reference Court, an application
under Order XLI, Rule 27 is to be filed to adduce
evidence and if it is allowed, opposite party has to be
given opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal", as found
in Manoj Kumar Vrs. State of Haryana, (2018) 13 SCC 96.
8.2. The view expressed by Supreme Court of India in
Basayya I. Mathad Vrs. Rudrayya S. Mathad, (2008) 1
SCR 1155 is noteworthy:
"It is clear that parties to the tis are not entitled to produce
additional evidence as of course or routine but must
satisfy the conditions stated in sub-clauses (a) & (aa).
Admittedly, such recourse has not been resorted to
neither by the party concerned nor adhered those
principles by the High Court. Paragraph 3 of his order
shows that the learned Judge verified the document
produced on his direction without complying the mandate
as provided under Rule 27 of Order XLI. Hence, we are of
the view that the finding of the learned Judge based on a
document produced at the time of argument de hors to
Rule 27 referred above cannot be sustained in the eye of
law. In such circumstances, his ultimate conclusion
treating the suit property as a family property partible
among the members of the family is also liable to be set
aside. In fact, sub-clause (2) of Rule 27 mandates
that wherever additional evidence is allowed to be
produced by an Appellate Court, it shall record the
reason for its admission. It is needless to mention that
the High Court neither followed those conditions for
production of additional evidence nor recorded the reason
for basing reliance on the same."
8.3. A Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in K.
Venkataramiah Vrs. A. Seetharama Reddy, (1964) 2 SCR
35, held:
"It is very much to be desired that the courts of appeal
should not overlook the provisions of cl. (2) of the Rule and
should record their reasons for admitting additional
evidence. We are not prepared, however, to accept
the contention of the appellant that the omission to
record the reason vitiates the admission of the
evidence. Clearly, the object of the provision is to keep a
clear record of what weighed with the appellate court in
allowing the additional evidence to be produced--
whether this was done on the ground:
(i) that the court appealed from had refused to admit
evidence which ought to have been admitted, or
(ii) it allowed it because it required it to enable it to
pronounce judgment in the appeal or
(iii) it allowed this for any other substantial cause.
Where a further appeal lies from the decision of the
appellate court such recording of the reasons is necessary
and useful also to the court of further appeal for deciding
whether the discretion under the rule has been judicially
exercised by the court below. The omission to record the
reason must therefore be treated as a serious defect.
Even so, we are unable to persuade ourselves that
this provision is mandatory. For, it does not seem
reasonable to think that the legislature intended
that even though in the circumstances of a
particular case it could be definitely ascertained
from the record why the appellate court allowed
additional evidence and it is clear that the power
was properly exercised within the limitation
imposed by the first clause of the Rule all that
should be set at naught merely because the
provision in the second clause was not complied
with. It may be mentioned that as early as 1885 when
considering a similar provision in the corresponding
Section of the Code of 1882, viz., Section 586, the High
Court of Calcutta held that this provision for recording
reasons is merely directory and not imperative vide Gopal
Singh Vrs. Jhakri Rai, (1866) 11 M.I.A. 28. We are aware
of no case in which the correctness of this view has been
doubted. It is worth noticing that when the 1908 Code
was framed and Order XLI Rule 27 took the place of the
old Section 568, the legislature was content to leave the
provision as it was and did not think it necessary to say
anything to make the requirement of recording reasons
imperative. It is true that the word "shall" is used in Rule
27(2); but that by itself does not make it mandatory. We
are therefore of opinion that the omission of the High
Court to record reasons for allowing additional evidence
does not vitiate such admission."
8.4. Be that be, this Court passed Judgment in LAA No.57 of
2015 on 21.03.2023 which is pronounced later to the
judgment of the Reference Court assailed in the present
appeal. The learned Senior Civil Judge had no occasion
for having regard to said Judgment at the relevant point
of time. The "map" sought to be adduced before this
Court as evidence was not before the Reference Court.
Since the "map" showing the lands, as relied on by the
counsel for the Appellants during course of argument,
are stated to be situated adjacent to or nearby the lands
that are considered in said referred land acquisition
appeal by this Court, the learned Senior Civil Judge-
Reference Court is required to re-determine the market
price of the land in question taking into consideration
the discussions made hereinabove. The Reference Court
is at liberty to reconsider the evidence on record and
that may be sought to be adduced by the parties and re-
determine the market value for the purpose of
quantifying the compensation amount.
9. Ergo, the Order dated 07.04.2018 passed in LA Misc.
Case No.112 of 2014 by the learned Senior Civil Judge,
Kamakhyanagar is hereby set aside. The matter is
remitted to the said Court for re-determining the market
price of land in question, i.e., Plot No.1937, Khata
No.240, mouza: Kamakhyanagar in the district of
Dhenkanal comprising an area of Ac.0.22dec. acquired
by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Angul-Duburi-
Sukinda Road New B.G. Rail Link Project under Section
4(1) of the LA Act vide Notification No.31513, dated
25.07.2011 [published in Odisha Gazette No.1808, dated
05.08.2011] in the light of the aforesaid referred cases
keeping in view principles enunciated and propounded
in the pronouncements discussed above. Needless to
clarify that this Court does not disturb the market price
as has already been determined in the Order dated
07.04.2018 of the Senior Civil Judge, but this order of
remit is confined to examination/redetermination of
market price for the purpose of considering
enhancement of amount of compensation as claimed in
the present appeal.
10. In consequence of aforesaid discussions and
observations, the Land Acquisition Appeal stand
disposed of and all pending interlocutory applications, if
any, shall stand disposed of. In the circumstances, the
parties are to bear their respective costs.
(MURAHARI SRI RAMAN)
JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 21st April, 2025//Laxmikant/Suchitra
Signature Not
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR
SETHY
Designation: Personal Assistant
(Secretary-in-Charge)
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH
COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 21-Apr-2025 14:49:13
