Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 289 (ORI)

LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. ABALA BISWAL

2000-06-19

P.K.MISRA

body2000
JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - This appeal u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" is directed against the award of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Talcher, In L.A.Misc No. 3 of 1994. 2. Land was acquired for the construction of Rengali Irrigation Project as per the notification published in the year 1978. The Land Acquisition Collector had fixed compensation at the rates of Rs. 4,500/-per acre in respect of Sarad-I land and homestead land; Rs. 3,800/- per acre in respect of Sarad-II land; Rs. 3,300/- per acre in respect of Sarad - III land; Rs. 2,500/- per acre in respect of Goda-I land and Rs.2.000/- per acre in respect of Goda-II land. In a reference u/s 18 of the Act, the Civil Judge (Senior Division) has fixed compensation at the rate of Rs. 11.000/- per acre in respect of Sarad-1 land; Rs. 10,000/- per acre in respect of Sarad-II land; Rs. 8,000/- per acre in respect of Sarad-III land; Rs. 6,000/- per acre in respect of Goda-I land; Rs.5,000/- per acre in respect of Goda-II land and Rs. 15,000/- per acre in respect of Gharabari land. The trial Court also directed that the claimants are entitled to get statutory benefits as envisaged in the Act as amended by Act 68 o 1984. The aforesaid award is being challenged by the State. A Cross-Objection has been filed by the claimant-respondents claiming higher compensation, The Civil Judge has applied the capitalisation method to fix the compensation. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the State relying upon some decisions of the Supreme Court has submitted that the multiplier applied by the trial Court is on the higher side and at best, a multiplier of 12 could have been applied. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondent on the other hand, submitted that in respect of lands acquired for the very same Rengali Irrigation Project, compensation has been fixed at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre and as such compensation should be paid at the same rate. It appears that this Court in First Appeal No. 55 of 1996 (State of Orissa v. Nisakar Pradhan), decided on 12.3.1998 had fixed compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre. The learned counsel for the claimant-respondents also submitted that in L.A.Misc. Case No. 25 of 1991 compensation at the rate of Rs. It appears that this Court in First Appeal No. 55 of 1996 (State of Orissa v. Nisakar Pradhan), decided on 12.3.1998 had fixed compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre. The learned counsel for the claimant-respondents also submitted that in L.A.Misc. Case No. 25 of 1991 compensation at the rate of Rs. 22,400/- had been paid by the State. Similarly, in L.A.Misc. Case No. 87 of 1991, compensation had been paid at the rate of Rs. 21.000/-and in L.A.Misc. Case No. 9 of 1992 compensation had been paid at the rate of Rs. 20,000/-. Having regard to all these aspects. I think compensation should be fixed at the rate of Rs. 20.000/- per acre. Though the trial Court had fixed compensation at a lower rate for the Goda land, such land being eminently suitable for being used as homestead land, compensation should be fixed at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre treating the same as homestead land. 4. The trial Court has directed that the benefits under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 should be paid to the claimants. The Notification was of the year 1978. However, the matter was pending before the Civil Judge when the Amendment Act came into force. Keeping in view the decisions of the Supreme Court on the aspect, the claimants shall be entitled to Solatium at the rate of 30 per cent. However, the claimants shall not to be entitled to the benefits u/s 23(1A) and the benefit of higher interest as contemplated in the amended Act. The contention of the counsel for the State to this extent is to be accepted. 5. The appeal and the Cross-Objection are accordingly disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.