Orissa High Court
Land Acquisition Officer vs Anjali Purohit & Ors on 16 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
L.A.A No.38 of 2017
Land Acquisition Officer,
Kalahandi ......... Appellant
-Versus-
Anjali Purohit & Ors. ......... Respondents
Advocate for the parties
For Appellant : Ms. S. Devi, ASC
For Respondents : None
...................
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Judgment: 16.01.2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.K. MISHRA, J.
1. Though the tracking reports available on record
indicate that the notices were duly served on the private
Respondents, the said Respondents go unrepresented, when the
matter is called. However, pursuant to order dated 13.12.2024,
after taking instruction, learned Counsel for the State-Appellant
submitted that the cause of action still survives in this Appeal and
the impugned Judgment dated 10.05.2016 passed in LAR No.09 of
2016 is yet to be implemented by the State-Appellant. Hence, the
matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal.
2. This Appeal has been preferred challenging the
Judgment dated 10.05.2016 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Bhawanipatna in LAR No.09 of 2016, vide which the
Court below held that the Petitioners (private Respondents) are
entitled to get the compensation @ Rs.4,00,000/- per acre for their
acquired land of Mala Kisam, vide Plot No. 15 under Khata No.31
of mouza Patiguda relating to LA Case No.02 of 2009 along with
other statutory benefits in terms of Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
shortly, 'Act', 1894.
3. The factual matrix of this Appeal is that the Land
Acquisition Officer, Kalahandi shortly, 'LAO', acquired the land of
the private Respondents of an area of Ac.0.27 decimals of Mala
Kisam vide Plot No.15 under Khata No.31 of Mouza Patiguda for
the purpose of construction of Talijore MIP as per notification
No.48916 dated 18.12.2009 under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act
published vide declaration No.5408 dated 03.02.2011 in LA Case
No.02 of 2009. The LAO assessed the compensation in total at
Rs.15,972/- for an area of Ac.0.27 decimals, which the
Claimants/Respondents received on 30.06.2012 under protest
claiming higher compensation. Thereafter, in a reference under
Section 18 of the Act, 1894, which was registered as LAR No.09 of
2016, the referral Court, vide order dated 10.05.2016 allowed the
claim of the Claimants/Respondents 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.
4. 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 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.
5. Learned Counsel for the State-Appellant reiterating the
grounds urged in the Memorandum of Appeal submitted that the
sole basis of enhancing the compensation @ Rs.4,00,000/- per
acre is Ext.1, which was of kisam Atta, whereas the suit land of
the present Appeal was of kisam Mala and both the lands are of
the same village. Learned Counsel for the State further submitted
that the finding of the Court below is perverse, and the impugned
judgment deserves interference.
6. However, in view of the submissions made by the
learned Counsel for the State-Appellant, it would be apt to
reproduce below paragraph-8 of the impugned judgment dated
10.05.2016 for ready reference.
" On a close scrutiny of the evidence adduced
by the petitioners, it is found that the petitioners
have not filed any document to show the yield
capacity so also the profit derived from their
acquired land for which capitalization method in
computing the compensation can hardly be
adopted. The petitioners have relied upon Ext.1
i.e. certified copy of judgment passed by this curt
on 19.01.2016 in LAR No.150 of 2014 and took
the plea that their acquired land was identical to
that of the lands acquired under Ext.1, for which
the value of their acquired land should be
calculated at par with the value of Ext.1. As
found from the working sheet filed and relied by
the OP vide Ext. A that there is no sale instance
of Mala Kissam of land in the acquired village
and the sale instance transacted @ ₹.38,800/-
per acre for Mala Kissam of land in neighbouring
village Tujung was available and the bench mark
valuation of Mala Kissam of land was
Rs.41,600/- per acre which was higher than said
sale transaction and hence bench mark valuation
@ Rs.41,600/- per acre was adopted as the
market value for Mala Kissam of lands.
Admittedly the acquired land of the
petitioners is of Mala Kissam of land. It is
further admitted fact that this court has
redetermined the value of Atta Kissam of
land @ Rs.4,00,000/- per acre under Ext.1
which was acquired for the same project
under the same notification of the present
case. As such for the interest of justice and
considering all the relevant factors
including the award of compensation
redetermined by this court for different
acquired lands under the same project for
the notification held in the same year and
on consideration of the location of the
acquired lands together with their utility
and potential value, it is felt by the court that if
a compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees
Four Lakhs) only per acre for Mala Kissam of
lands along with other statutory benefits will be
redetermined, then it will be just and reasonable
in the instant case."
(Emphasis Supplied)
7. Further, on perusal of the LCR, it is found that the
Petitioner, who examined herself as P.W.1, in her evidence-in-chief
has stated that the village Patiguda is adjoining to village M.
Rampur, which is a semi-urban area and fast growing locality
having College, School, High School, Courts, Hospital and Market
Complexes within its boundary and situated adjacent to national
highway from Raipur to Gopalpur. Apart from the same, she has
further stated that due to demand of house site at M. Rampur, a
fast growing semi urban area has been developed, for which they
developed the acquired land into house site long before the
acquisition and in their village, Mala kisam of land was sold @
Rs.5,00,000/- per acre before the notification was made under
Section 4(1) of the Act 1894, as per the sale statistics obtained by
the Opposite Party. It has further been stated that they are using
the said agricultural land for the purpose of cultivation and earned
out of the same. Apart from that she has also stated that the same
court has re-determined the market value of Atta kisam of land of
village Patiguda @ Rs.4,00,000/- per acre, which was acquired by
the State for the same purpose under the same Notification, vide
LAR Case No.150 of 2014 preferred by one Jaya Kumar Singh Deo,
which was decided on 19.01.2016. During her examination-in-
chief, the said Judgment passed in LAR No.150 of 2014 was also
marked as Exhibit-1 without any objection.
8. It is found from the evidence of P.W.1 that the said
statement of P.W.1 regarding potentiality of the land because of
situational advantage remained unchallenged during her cross-
examination. Further from the evidence of O.P.W.1, who is the
concerned Amin, it is found that during his cross-examination, he
has admitted that he had not verified the case land village. He also
admitted that the lands of Jaya Kumar Singh Deo at village
Patiguda were acquired for the same project and also admitted
that he has not prepared Ext.A and has no direct knowledge with
regard to Ext.A.
9. However to disbelieve the statement of the P.W.1 so
also to protest the further claim made by the Petitioners (present
Respondents), no specific evidence has been laid by the State
Opposite Parties before the Court below excepting that the market
value of the lands were determined by the LAO based on the sale
instances and the compensation paid to Petitioners is just and
proper. Further, on examination of Ext.A, it is found that no sale
instances of Mala kisam of land so far as village Patiguda is
concerned and the sale statistics, as disclosed vide Ext.A, is
pertaining to the neighboring village i.e. M. Rampur Tujung.
10. In view of the said evidence on record so also the
observation made by the Court below, this Court is of the view that
there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment passed
in LAR No.09 of 2016 and the Appeal preferred by the State
deserves to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed.
12. In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, the State-
Appellant is directed to implement the Judgment dated
10.05.2016 passed in LAR No.09 of 2016 within a period of three
months from the date of production of the certified copy of this
Judgment.
13. Since the Respondents did not appear despite due
notice, Office is directed to communicate a copy of this Judgment
to the Court below so also the Respondents.
...............................
S.K. MISHRA, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
Dated, 16th January, 2025/ Mona
Location: High Court of Odisha
