Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 109 (ORI)

Kedar Charan Dehury v. State of Orissa

2007-02-15

A.K.PARICHHA

body2007
JUDGMENT A. K. PARICHHA, J. — This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Deogarh dated 29.4.1993 in L.A. Misc. Case No.51 of 1992 in a matter of reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). 2. By Declaration No.49933 dated 21.6.1994 the State Respondent acquired Ac.1.16 decimals of land of the appellant for Rengali Dam Project (Reservoir). The Land Acquisition Zone Offi¬cer (hereinafter call ‘the Zone Officer’), Barkot after inquiry computed the market value of the acquired land and trees standing thereon and awarded a total compensation of Rs.9,066.42 paise. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appel¬lant filed a petition before the Zone Officer to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act for determination of the proper amount of compensation. On this petition the Zone Officer re¬ferred the matter to the learned Subordinate Judge,Deogarh. The said Court allowed the parties to lead evidence. The appellant examined himself as P.W.1, but he did not adduce any documentary evidence. No oral or documentary evidence was also adduced from the side of the present respondent. After considering the evi¬dence of P.W.1 and the materials available on record, the refer¬ral Court came to hold that the claim of annual income of the appellant from the acquired land is inflated and he is also not entitled to get compensation by use of 20 multiplier. It was further held that the annual income assessed by the Zone Officer is proper and the use of 16 multiplier is also justified.In the result, reference was answered virtually accepting the compensa¬tion worked out by the Zone Officer, with the simple observation that the claimant is entitled to get further interest of Rs.37.25 paise above that amount of compensation awarded. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal. 3. Mr. A. K. Maharana, learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that the appellant as P.W.1 gave statement in clear terms about the income and expenditure from the acquired land and the value of the trees standing thereon and when there was no rebuttal evidence from the side of the respondent; the referral Court had no justification of calling the income statis¬tics given by the p.w.1 as inflated and accepting the rates given by the Zone Officer in the award as correct and proper. He speci¬fically alleges that the impugned order is based on hypothesis and imagination and is unsustainable. Learned counsel further claims that the acquired land was the only source of earning for the family of the appellant and use of 20 multiplier was proper as the livelihood of the appellant’s family was taken away by the acquisition of the lands. 4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Addl.Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, supports the impugned order and submits that the claim of p.w.1 was not at all backed by any document or evidence and was unacceptable to the commonsense and therefore, referral Court had every justification of terming it as unreasonable and inflated. He states that the entire record of the land acquisition proceeding had been placed before the referral Court along with the reference petition and therefore, the Court had opportunity to see the process adopted by the Zone Officer in assessing the compensation, so,the ob¬servation of the referral Court cannot be termed as imaginary or hypothetical. He submits that on principle the land acquisition authorities were using 16 multiplier for all the lands acquired for Rengali Dam Project and therefore, claim of 20 multiplier by the appellant is without any basis. In this regard he cited the case of State of Orissa v. Giridhari Nayak, 2006 (II) OLR 329 with a submission that 16 multiplier is also in the higher side. 5. Admittedly Ac.0.93 decimals of “Jala aul” land and Ac.0.23 decimals of “Goda” land belonging to the appellant were acquired for the purpose of Rengali Dam Project. P.W.1 claimed that in the Jala land he was raising paddy and mung and was get¬ting 22 quintals of paddy and 2 quintals of mung per acre and in the Goda land he was getting 2 quintals of rasi and 4 quintals of potato per acre every year. According to him, the expenses of agricultural operation was about 1/3rd of the yield. In cross-examination P.W.1 admitted that some of his family members used to work in the land and the cow-dung of his own cattle was being used as manure and for that reason the expenses in raising crops was less. Though he admitted that there was no sample survey of crop cutting of his land, there was no rebuttal evidence from the side of the respondent to reject his evidence outright. Though he admitted that there was no sample survey of crop cutting of his land, there was no rebuttal evidence from the side of the respondent to reject his evidence outright. P.W.1 might have given the income statistics in an inflated manner,but considering his evidence as a whole, it cannot be said that the evidence was totally unacceptable. 6. The next question which comes up for consideration is what was the actual annual yield of the lands acquired. In this regard learned counsel for the parties consent for referring the estimate-sheet and reference letter of the Zonal Officer, which is marked as Ext.A by way of additional evidence. On scrutiny of the contents of the estimate-sheet it is seen that the land acquisition authorities have assessed the annual average yield of low land at 6.68 quintals, medium land 5.52 quintals and high land 4.83 quintals of paddy. For this assessment no statistics or document or basis has been annexed. So, this statistics regarding annual yield noted in the petition cannot also be accepted as gospel truth. When there is no concrete evidence from the side of the parties, in a land acquisition referral proceeding the Court has to apply its judicial commonsense and guess work to assess the annual yield/valuation of the acquired land. Jala Aul lands are invariably low lands having some water facility. So, yield of such land will definitely be more than average. So applying a little commonsense it can be held that such land would yield about 10 quintals of paddy per acre. Goda lands are high lands where only Rabi crops or seasonal crops are raised. Such lands usually do not have water facility. Therefore, yield of such land is bound to be on the lower side. On such land one cannot expect yield of 4 quintals of potato and 2 quintals of rasi per acre. A reasonable estimate in this regard would end in a conclusion that such land may at best yield 2 quintals of potato and 1 quintal of rabi crop per acre. Such estimation cannot be taken as the actual yield of the land but it can be taken as reasonable yield from the variety of lands noted above. Admittedly, the rate of paddy at the relevant time was Rs.200/-, mung Rs.100/, potato Rs.250/- and Rasi Rs.100/- per quintal (it has been noted in the impugned order). Such estimation cannot be taken as the actual yield of the land but it can be taken as reasonable yield from the variety of lands noted above. Admittedly, the rate of paddy at the relevant time was Rs.200/-, mung Rs.100/, potato Rs.250/- and Rasi Rs.100/- per quintal (it has been noted in the impugned order). So the value of the paddy yield from the Jala land will be about Rs.1800/- and mung Rs.200/- per year. That makes a total of Rs.2000/- per year. From 23 decimals of Goda land the income from potato and Rasi would be roughly about Rs.150/-. So the total is Rs.2150/-. The agricultural expendi¬ture, according to the appellant is 1/3rd of the yield. So de¬ducting the agricultural expenses the net income comes approx¬imately to Rs.1500/- per year. The appellant did not produce any evidence before the referral Court to justify that the value of his land is to be assessed by use of 20 multiplier. On the other hand, Ext. A shows that 16 multiplier has been used and according to the submission of the learned counsel for the State, 16 multi¬plier has been used for almost all the land acquired for Rengali Dam Project. In view of such statement, the ratio of Giridhari Nayak’s Case (supra) cannot be applied to the present case, more so, when the State has not challenged the finding of the referral Court about use of 16 multiplier. So, it would be fair and reaso¬nable to use 16 multiplier for the land of the appellant. In that process the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs.1,500/- x 16 i.e. Rs.24,000/-. A sum of Rs.460/- for the trees standing on the land as has been determined by the D.F.O., Deogarh has also to be added to the value of the land. So, the appellant was entitled to get Rs.24,000/- + 460/- towards compensation for land and trees along with the statutory benefits, namely, 12% addi¬tional compensation on the value of the land, 30% solatium as per Sec.23(1A) of the Act and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of taking over possession of the land till the date of payment and further if payment is not made within a year then @ 15% interest after expiry of one year from the date of such taking over possession as per Section 28 of the Act. The amount already received by the appellant shall be adjusted towards the total amount thus computed. 7. The appeal is thus partly allowed on contest. Appeal partly allowed.