Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 616 (ORI)

Land Acquisition Officer, Kalahandi v. Dasa Goud

2007-08-09

A.K.PARICHHA

body2007
ORDER 09.08.2007 — This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna in MJC No. 4 of 2001 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A.Act. Ac. 1.08 dec. of land appertaining to Holding No. 46, Plot No. 9 of village Budhipadar in the district of Kalahandi belonging to the claimants-respondents was acquired for the construction of Turla Minor Irrigation Project vide Government notification No. 18059 dated 23.3.1999, and declaration No. 59667 dated 7.12.1999. The Land Acquisition Collector after conducting enquiry under Section 11 of the Act awarded compensation for Rs. 34,080/- including solatium to the claimants. Being dissatisfied with the said amount of compensation, the claimant-respondents requested for reference of the matter to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act and in consequence, the matter came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna in the above noted M.J.C. To justify the claim of higher compensation, the claimant-respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and another witness as P.W.2. The Land Acquisition Collector examined himself as O.P.W.1 and produced the Xerox copy of the working sheet of village Budhipadar and Xerox copy of the sales statistics as Ext. A & B respectively. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties, learned referral Court came to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land was to be Rs. 80,000/- per acre at the time of acquisition. He accordingly directed payment of compensation alongwith other statutory bene¬fits. Aggrieved by the said award, the State has filed this appeal. Mr. Sangram Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the impugned award is very much on the higher side and is not supported by any cogent evidence and therefore, the same is unsustainable. Mr. B. Mohanty-3, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents, on the other hand supports the impugned award thoroughly. Since no contemporaneous sales statistics and documents were available, learned referral Court took the annual income of the acquired land into consideration and by use of 10 multiplier under capitalisation method, arrived at the conclusion that the market value of the land was Rs. 80,000/- per acre at the relevant point of time. It is seen that P.Ws. Since no contemporaneous sales statistics and documents were available, learned referral Court took the annual income of the acquired land into consideration and by use of 10 multiplier under capitalisation method, arrived at the conclusion that the market value of the land was Rs. 80,000/- per acre at the relevant point of time. It is seen that P.Ws. 1 and 2 stated before the learned referral Court that the acquired land is a fertile land and the claimant-respondents were getting 40 quin¬tals of brinjals per year. They stated that the brinjal at that time was being sold at Rs. 5/- per kg. Taking note of this evidence and also the fact that 60% is spent towards the cost of cultivation of vegetables, the learned referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired land was Rs. 8,000/-. On this, he used 10 multiplier to ascertain the market value of the land. O.P.W.1 simply produced the Xerox copy of the sale statistics and working sheet, but he could not stoutly deny that the lands of village Budhipadar are fertile and are costly lands. Be that as it may, it is not an abnormal proposition that by raising vegetable, a farmer can earn Rs. 8,000/- from a fer¬tile land measuring Ac. 1.08 dec. Since the estimation of annual income and use of 10 multiplier is reasonable, there is no reason to interfere with the award. Accordingly, the award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed on contest without cost. Appeal dismissed.