Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 186 (ORI)

State of Orissa v. Chandola Pradhan

2003-02-28

PRADIP MOHANTY

body2003
JUDGMENT PRADIP MOHANTY, J. — This first appeal is directed against the order dated 1.2.2000 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Deogarh, in L.A. Case No. 6 of 2000. 2. The facts in brief leading to this first appeal are stated herein below : Pursuant to notification dated 23.1.1975 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act published in E.O.G. No. 4573 dated 21.1.1978, the Government of Orissa acquired Ac. 8.74 decimals of land under Khata No. 29 of 2/3 of mouja Goudasuguda under Barkote P.S. in the district of Deogarh, which belonged to the respondents-claimants, for the purpose of construction of Rengali Dam Project. The Land Acquisition Officer, Deogarh, determined the value of the acquired lands at Rs. 51,731,60 paise and, accordingly, awarded the compensation to the claimants which they received on protest. The claimants-respondents filed a petition before the Land Acquisition Officer, Deogarh, alleging that they are the owner in possession of the lands, which included Gharabari, trees and class-I irrigated lands, which were acquired for the above pur¬pose. Accordingly, they claimed higher valuation multiplied by 16 annual yield value along with other statutory benefits. The Land Acquisition Officer referred the dispute under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Deo¬garh, for adjudication. 3. The learned Civil Judge, after considering the evidence on record, by his judgment dated 1.2.2000 awarded higher compen¬sation of Rs. 9,350/- towards loss of standing trees, Rs. 1,64,800/- towards valuation of the agricultural land, and Rs. 20,000/- for the loss of the acquired house and directed the Land Acquisition Officer to pay the above compensation to the claim¬ants after deducting the award amount which he had already paid. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Deogarh, the State through the Land Acquisition Offi¬cer, Deogarh has preferred this first appeal. 4. During hearing of the appeal Mr. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel, vehemently urged that the Court below has failed to appreciate the scope and ambit of Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act for determination of the market value of the lands in question. He also argued that the award of higher compensation is exorbitant and, thus, prayed for setting aside the judgment. Ms. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel, vehemently urged that the Court below has failed to appreciate the scope and ambit of Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act for determination of the market value of the lands in question. He also argued that the award of higher compensation is exorbitant and, thus, prayed for setting aside the judgment. Ms. Mira Ghose, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the Court below has rightly assessed the prevailing market value and passed the order after consider¬ing evidence on record. The learned counsel placed before the Court the Xerox copy of an unreported judgment of this Court in F.A. No. 55 of 1996, State of Orissa vrs. Nisakar Pradhan, and submitted that in the said judgment this Court had fixed Rs. 20,000/- per acre of agricultural lands in the area where the acquired lands are situated. Therefore, there is no illegality committed by the Court below in determining the higher compensa¬tion. 5. The issue involved in this appeal relates to the higher compensation awarded to the claimants in respect of their lands acquired for the purpose of construction of the Rengali Irriga¬tion Dam Project. In order to establish their case, the claimants examined two witnesses. P.W.1 is Chandol Pradhan, one of the claimants-respondents. In his evidence, he stated that, the lands are of class-I variety having assured irrigation facility from Goud Suguda M.I.P. They were cultivating paddy and mung in the entire land and were getting 20 quintals of paddy and 4 quintals of mung per acre annually. There were also four numbers of mahua trees, 24 palm trees, 3 mango trees and other trees like neem, Sajana and orange. They were maintaining their livelihood out of the produce of the land and the fruit bearing trees. He also stated that their dwelling house consisting of 8 rooms was also situated on the acquired land. P.W.2, Chandal Rajahansa, is a co-villager who supports the evidence of p.w.1. The Land Acquisition Officer has not examined a single witness to support his case and except for some minor discrepan¬cies, nothing substantial has been brought out in cross-examination of the witnesses to discard their testimony. The Government has also failed to even come forward with a scrap of paper showing the market value of the land acquired by it. I am, therefore, inclined to believe that the learned Civil Judge (Sr. The Government has also failed to even come forward with a scrap of paper showing the market value of the land acquired by it. I am, therefore, inclined to believe that the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Deogarh, has rightly assessed the valuation and determined the higher compensation which this Court does not feel expedient to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed in the land acquisition case and the same are affirmed. 6. For the reasons stated above, the first appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to cost. Appeal dismissed.