Orissa High Court
Union Of India vs G.B. Nayak & Others on 8 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
L.A.A. No.14 of 2017
(In the matter of an application under
Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894)
Union of India ....... Appellant
-Versus-
G.B. Nayak & others ....... Respondents
Advocate for the parties
For Appellant : Mr. P.K. Parhi,
D.S.G.I.
For Respondent Nos.1 & 3 to 9: Mr. A. Tripathy,
Advocate
For Respondent No.2 : None
For Respondent Nos.10 & 11 : Mr. S.K. Parhi,
Addl. Standing Counsel
----------------------------
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment: 08.01.2025
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.K. Mishra, J. This Appeal has been preferred by the
Appellant-Union of India challenging the Judgment dated
12th January, 2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge,
Nayagarh in L.A. Misc. Case No.09 of 2007, vide which
the referral Court held that the Claimants/Petitioners
(present private Respondents) are entitled to get
compensation @ Rs.1,500/- per decimal for their lands,
apart from the interest, solatium, market value and other
benefits as per the statute.
2. The factual matrix of the present Appeal is
that, the Government has acquired the lands of the
private Respondents (Claimants/Petitioners before the
Court below) for Khurda Road-Bolangir New B.G. Rail
Link Project. The acquired lands appertain to an area of
Ac. 0.02 decimals in Plot No.845, Ac. 0.95 decimals in
Plot No.730, Ac. 0.03 decimals in Plot No.475 and
Ac. 0.78 decimals in Plot No.456 under Khata No.13 of
Mouza-Khutubandha, PS/Dist: Nayagarh. The
Claimants/Petitioners received the compensation of
Rs.2,07,752/-, which includes solatium and market
value from the Government on 09.01.2007 with objection
on the ground that the said compensation was too low.
The present Respondent No.1, who was the Petitioner
No.1 before the Court below, namely, Gagan Bihari
L.A.A. No.14 of 2017 Page 2 of 10
Nayak, being authorized by all the Claimants/Petitioners,
filed a petition, which was referred for adjudication to the
referral Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, shortly hereinafter, 'L.A. Act'. After giving
opportunity to the parties to have their say so also lead
evidence and taking into consideration the said pleadings
and evidence on record, the Court below held that the
present private Respondents (Claimants/ Petitioners
before the Court below) are entitled to get compensation
@ Rs.1,500/- per decimal for their lands apart from
interest, solatium, market value and other benefits as per
the statute. Hence this Appeal.
3. The present Appeal has been preferred
basically on the ground that even though the Court below
observed that the R.S.D. marked as Ext.1 is not an
example to compare the valuation of the acquired land of
the Respondents/Claimants, at the same time it
enhanced the compensation amount in a whimsical
manner without assigning any reason. A further ground
has been urged that though Ext.A shows the actual value
L.A.A. No.14 of 2017 Page 3 of 10
of the acquired land at the time of acquisition, the Court
below has committed gross illegality by not relying upon
the said document at the time of pronouncing the
Judgment. Apart from that, though all the P.Ws.,
including the Claimants, have categorically stated in their
evidences that the acquired land is surrounded by
agricultural land and they do not know the cost of the
land and have not filed any document to show the cost as
prayed by them and also failed to prove as to potentiality
of the land, still the Court below enhanced the
compensation @ Rs.1,500/- per decimal.
4. It has also been urged in the grounds of the
Appeal that the decision relied upon by the trial Court is
not similar to the present case, as the condition cited in
the said decision, relied upon by the trial Court, has not
been fulfilled by the Claimants/private Respondents.
Further, the Court below wrongly interpreted the
evidence of O.P.W.1 and relying on the same, has
enhanced the compensation amount when all the P.Ws in
L.A.A. No.14 of 2017 Page 4 of 10
their evidences have not proved their case regarding
valuation of the acquired land.
5. Mr. Parhi, learned D.S.G.I, reiterating the
grounds urged in the Memorandum of Appeal submitted
that the impugned Judgment is perverse, because of the
grounds detailed in the Memorandum of Appeal and
deserves to be set aside.
6. Per contra, Mr. Tripathy, learned Counsel for
the private Respondents, drawing attention of this Court
to the detailed discussions made by the Court below in
the impugned Judgment with regard to Point Nos.2 & 3,
at internal page 6 to 11 of the impugned judgment,
submitted that the Court below has passed a detailed
reasoned order taking into consideration the oral as well
as documentary evidence on record and there being no
infirmity or illegality in the said order, the Appeal
preferred by the Union of India deserves to be dismissed.
7. Mr. Tripathy, learned Counsel for the private
Respondents, relying on a recent Judgment of this Court
dated 09.01.2024 passed in L.A.A. No.08 of 2019 (Union
L.A.A. No.14 of 2017 Page 5 of 10
of India Vs. Alekh Behera and others) submitted that
the suit land in the said Appeal was of the same kisam
i.e. Sarad Dofasali-II, which was acquired by the
Appellant-Union of India, which also belongs to the same
mouza as of the mouza in the present Appeal and was
also acquired for the same project under the same
notification, which was the subject matter of challenge in
L.A.A. No.08 of 2019.
8. Mr. Tripathy further submitted that in the said
case, the referral Court enhanced the compensation of
Sarad Dofasali-II kisam of land to Rs.1,800/- per
decimal, which was confirmed by this Court. Whereas, in
the present impugned order, the same referral Court
enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,500/- per decimal for
the same kisam of land of same mouza, which was
acquired vide the same notification for the self same
purpose.
9. A query being made, learned D.S.G.I. fairly
concedes the said submission made by the learned
Counsel for the Respondents to be correct.
L.A.A. No.14 of 2017 Page 6 of 10
10. In view of the arguments advanced by the
learned Counsel for the parties, it would be apt to
reproduce below the relevant paragraphs of the impugned
Judgment for ready reference.
"The learned Counsel for the
petitioner elicited from O.P.W.1 in his
cross-examination that "residential
houses of Bhagaban Bhatta, Ananda
Naik, Trilochan Mohanty, Chakradhar
Bihari, Panchy Mohanty and others are
there nearer to the R.D. Road.
Residential houses of one Chaitanya
Bhoi, Sudarsan Bhol and others are
there by the side of the R.D. Road at
the opposite direction of Plot no.733.
there is a U.P. School and M.E. School
in village Khuntubandha. The said
village has been electrified. There is a
mini market and School at village
Chahali. It is a fact that Ext.B has not
been prepared basing on the bench mark
valuation. Ext. B is silent about homestead
land. Trace Map relating to the acquired
lands out of plot no.456, 730, 475 and 845
have not been filed in this case."
In the case at hand though one
Working sheet and Sales Statistics were
marked as Ext.A and B respectively from
the side of opposite party, however, the
contents of these two documents are not
properly proved by any authenticated
official. No document is file by the opposite
parties showing that basing upon which
Exts. A & B are prepared. Also no
authenticated document is proved by the
opposite parties showing the Bench mark
L.A.A. No.14 of 2017 Page 7 of 10
valuation or market value of the acquired
land on the date of notification or by the
time of acquisition. The petitioner's claim
that the Government has acquired from the
middle portion and from the front portion of
the acquired plots, for which it injuriously
affects the entire land. But in that
connection no document like any ROR or
trace map etc. are proved by the petitioner.
Thus, in absence of any cogent material
produced by either sides, the only course
open for this Court to ascertain market
value of the acquired lands basing upon
guessestimate.
For ascertaining market value of
the property acquired, I referred the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Charanjit Kaur (dead) through L.Rs.
Vrs. Union of India and others, 2003
SAR(Civil) SUPPl. 59 Bhule Ram Vrs.
Union of India and another, 2014 AIR
(Civil) 434, wherein it is held that the
market value of the acquired land is to
be determined taking into
consideration the location,
importance, existing use of the land,
geographical situation, prospects and
purposes to which the said land may
be used, condition/disadvantages and
potentiality in foreseeable future.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner
cited a decision reported in Pehlad Ram &
Others., 2014 (I) CLR (SC)-182, wherein it is
held that unless the State authorities or
acquiring authority prove, the cumulative
increase of 10 to 15 per cent per year in the
market value of the land may be accepted.
In the case at hand, Kisam of the
acquired lands are Sarad Dofasli-II of an
area of Ac. 1.76 decimals and Kisam Taila-
II of an area of Ac.0.02 decimals. The
L.A.A. No.14 of 2017 Page 8 of 10
acquisition was made on 23.09.2005 and
the claimants received total compensation
amount of Rs.2,07,157/- for the total
acquired area of Ac.1.76 decimals i.e. the
L.A.O. has valued the acquired land @
Rs.797=38. The evidence of P.Ws is that
the acquired lands are near to a R.D.
road. From the evidence of P.Ws., it is
clear that there are agricultural lands
around the acquired plots. As per the
O.P.W. no.1, there is U.P. School, M.E.
School and a mini market at the
village-Khuntubandha and the same
village has been electrified, and the
acquired lands are nearer to
residential locality. Thus, considering
the locational advantage of the
acquired lands, I am of the opinion
that the claimants are entitled for
higher compensation."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. Apart from that, this Court in Alekh Behera
(supra), confirmed the enhanced compensation @
Rs.1,800/- per decimal for the same kisam of land of
same mouza, which was acquired under the same
notification for the same project. Hence, this Court is of
the opinion that there is no infirmity or illegality in the
impugned judgment dated 12th January, 2017 passed in
L.A. Misc. Case No.09 of 2007.
L.A.A. No.14 of 2017 Page 9 of 10
12. Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed. No
order as to cost.
13. In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, the
Appellant-Union of India is directed to implement the
Judgment dated 12th January, 2017, passed in L.A. Misc.
Case No.09 of 2007, within a period of three months from the
date of production of the certified copy of this Judgment.
...............................
S.K. MISHRA, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
Dated, the 8th January, 2025/Prasant
Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 13-Jan-2025 10:22:33
