Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 769 (ORI)

Collector, Puri v. Rama Chandra Sarangi

2007-09-28

SANJU PANDA

body2007
JUDGMENT S. PANDA, J. : This appeal is directed against an award dated 3.2.1994 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Puri, in Land Acquisition Misc. Case No. 100 of 1991 on a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter re¬ferred to as “the Act”). State is the appellant. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : The claimant-respondent’s land measuring an area of Ac. 0.30 decimals in Plot No. 188 under Khata No. 136 in Mouza Brahmagiri was acquired by the State for construction of a bridge over the river South Kania. The acquisition was made in the year 1988 vide Declaration No. 51334 dated 8.8.1988 which was published in Extraordinary Orissa Gazette No. 1293 dated 6.9.1988. As the Kisam of the land was Sarada-II, determining the market value of the land acquired at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per acre, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the compensation at Rs. 3600/- for Ac. 0.30 decimals of land along with other statutory benefits and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 5112/-. The claimant-respondent received the said amount on protest. Thereafter, he filed an objection claiming Rs. 2 lakhs per acre for the acquired land. 3. To substantiate his claim, the claimant examined three witnesses including himself as P.W.1 and two other persons as P.Ws. 2 and 3, who have purchased land in the vicinity, and also produced two documentary evidence which were marked as Exts. 1 and 2. The Land Acquisition Officer neither examined any witness nor produced any documentary evidence in support of his case. 4. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) accepted the claim of the claimant and determined the market value of the land at Rs. 2 lakhs per acre. Being aggrieved, the State Government has preferred this appeal on the ground that the award passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) is at a very higher side. 5. The learned Addl. Standing Counsel submitted that some portion of the land was purchased after the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published. He further submitted that in order to determine the market value of the land, the sale deed executed after the notification for acquisition of the land should not be the sole criterion. 5. The learned Addl. Standing Counsel submitted that some portion of the land was purchased after the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published. He further submitted that in order to determine the market value of the land, the sale deed executed after the notification for acquisition of the land should not be the sole criterion. According to him, transactions made two to three years prior to the date of the notification should be taken into consideration for determination of market value of the land and since the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) has not assigned any adequate reason for enhancing the value of the land, and has accepted the oral as well as the documentary evidence of the claimant in toto, determination of the market value at Rs. 2 lakhs per acre for the acquired land is illegal and needs to be set aside. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimant submitted that since the land was adjoining to mouza Brahmagiri and the two sale deeds filed by the claimant show that the market value of land was Rs. 2 lakhs per acre during the period when the Government acquired the land, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) has rightly determined the market value of the acquired land which need not be interfered with. 7. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by the parties, it is to be found out as to whether the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) has given any adequate or tenable reason for adopting the value it did. In this case before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) two sale deeds were produced at the instance of the claimant and three witnesses were examined. From the evidence, it became clear that the lands acquired were agricul¬tural land and agricultural operations were being carried on in them. There was no electricity connection to or pucca road in the land. Though certain sale deeds were produced, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) did not indicate how in his view the claimant has discharged the burden and how the sale deeds relied on provided a proper guide for enhancing the compensation. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. There was no electricity connection to or pucca road in the land. Though certain sale deeds were produced, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) did not indicate how in his view the claimant has discharged the burden and how the sale deeds relied on provided a proper guide for enhancing the compensation. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) is expected to be more specific in dealing with an aspect like advantage and disadvantages with reference to the lands involved in those sale instances compared with the lands involved in acquisition before determining what would be the just compensation payable to the land-owners in the present acquisition. 8. While assessing the compensation due in respect of the acquired land, the test is to see what a willing purchaser was willing to give and a willing seller was willing to receive. On scrutiny of the relevant materials in the light of the above position of law, this Court is of the view that the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) erroneously enhanced the compensation without any acceptable legal evidence in support of the same. Therefore, this Court holds that the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) has not considered the oral evidence as well as the documentary evidence adduced before him in its proper perspective. It cannot be said that the two sale deeds in Exts. 1 and 2 are contemporaneous documents to determine the market value of the acquired land. Hence, the impugned award passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) needs interference. 9. The land acquired was Sarada-II and no conclusive evidence was before the Court to determine the market value of Sarada-II land. Thus, while awarding compensation, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) should have deducted some amount as claimed by the claimant. 10. The law is well settled that where there is no conclusive evidence from the side of the parties in a Land Acqui¬sition proceeding, the Court has to apply its judicial conscience and guess-work to assess the value of the property. 11. Accordingly, the award passed by the land Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Puri, in L.A.Misc. Case No. 100 of 1991 is modified and the market value of the land acquired by the State Government for construction of a bridge over the river South Kania is fixed at Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) instead of Rs. 11. Accordingly, the award passed by the land Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Puri, in L.A.Misc. Case No. 100 of 1991 is modified and the market value of the land acquired by the State Government for construction of a bridge over the river South Kania is fixed at Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) instead of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) per acre and it is directed that the claimant shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) per acre along with other statutory benefits as awarded by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) in the aforesaid L.A.Misc. Case. 12. The appeal is allowed in part but there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed in part.