Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 798 (ORI)

MARKANDA CHARAN SAHOO v. L. A. COLLECTOR

2007-10-11

P.K.TRIPATHY

body2007
JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Heard further argument from the parties, hearing is concluded and the Judgment is as follows. 2. Land Acquisition Case No. 2 of 1982 was registered in the Court of Sub-ordinate Judge, Jagatsinghpur (presently known as Civil Judge, Senior Division) on the reference made by the Land Acquisition Collector, Cuttack u/s 30 read with Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act'). It reveals on record that under Declaration No. 33849, dated 03.05.1977 Ac.0.06 decimals of 'Sarada' variety of land from plot No. 285 under Khata No. 32 and Ac.0.08 decimals of 'Sarada' variety of land under Plot No. 283 under Khata No. 78, both in Mouza Hitarana under Tirtol Police Station was acquired. The L.A. Collector determined the rate of compensation u/s 11 of the Act @ Rs. 3000/- (three thousand) per area. On determination of the quantum of compensation he entertained objection of Markanda Charan Sahu (Appellant in F.A. No. 1/9 of 1991) as the purchaser of Ac.0.04 decimals out of Ac.0.06 decimals of land from Plot No. 285. The said Appellant also claimed for compensation at higher rate for the land acquired. Appellant also led claim for damage and compensation for damage to the house constructed for running a rice-huller and shifting of the business because of the acquisition. Accordingly, Appellant led a claim of compensation @ Rs. 2500/- (two thousand five hundred) per 'Gunth', Rs. 12,000/- (twelve thousand) for shifting of the rice-huller and Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) towards damage. 3. The lower Court passed the impugned award on 11.09.1990. Learned Sub-ordinate Judge determined the compensation @ Rs. 100/-(one hundred) per decimal of land. He apportioned the compensation for Ac.0.02 decimals in favour of the recorded tenant of Plot No. 285 and for Ac.0.04 decimals in favour of the Appellant Markanda Charan Sahu. He passed an award for compensation of Ac.0.03 decimals of land under Plot No. 283 in favour of the said Appellant. 4. After the aforesaid award, the L.A. Collector, Cuttack on 02.01.1991 filed First Appeal No. 4 of 1991 as against the aforesaid award dated 11.09.1990. On the other hand Markanda Charan Sahu filed Misc. Case No. 414 of 1990 in the Court below for review of the order so as to calculate compensation on Ac.0.11 decimals of land from plot No. 283. On the other hand Markanda Charan Sahu filed Misc. Case No. 414 of 1990 in the Court below for review of the order so as to calculate compensation on Ac.0.11 decimals of land from plot No. 283. Learned Sub-ordinate Judge allowed that review application and modified the quantum of compensation for Ac.0.11 decimals so far as plot No. 283 is concerned. Markanda Charan Sahu has filed First Appeal No. 119 of 1991 challenging to the award dated 11.09.1990 on the ground that the rate at which the compensation has been awarded is grossly inadequate and the Court below committed error in not granting compensation on account of shifting of the rice-huller. 5. The recorded tenant of Plot No. 285 appears as Respondent in both the above noted appeals, whereas the aforesaid two Appellants in both the appeals appear as Respondent No. 1 in the appeal filed by the other Appellant. 6. The L.A. Collector, Cuttack on 16.09.2000 filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C. to consider the dispute relating to the extent of land acquired from Plot No. 283 and in that respect to allow additional evidence by making perusal of the reference and the relevant records. When that document is the basis for reference to adjudicate the entire dispute, therefore, there was no necessity to file an application under Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C. in as much as in any event such documents have to be perused to determine the dispute between the parties. Accordingly, Misc. Case No. 584 of 2000 stands disposed of. 7. It is appropriate to mention here that there is confusion all-around relating to the extent of land acquired from Plot No. 283. In the common reference u/s 18 of the Act made by the L.A. Collector, at pages 7 and 8 of the lower Court's record, the extent of land was recorded as Ac.0.03 decimals, whereas at pages 10 and 11 of the record the said area was described as Ac.0.08 decimals. In that respect there is no discrepancy relating to the Declaration Number or Notification Number or the dates thereof. It appears that in the front page of the reference, i.e., at page-3 (in the brief of the Civil Judge) the description of Ac.0.03 decimals of Plot No. 283 was over-written and described as Ac.0.11 decimals. In that respect there is no discrepancy relating to the Declaration Number or Notification Number or the dates thereof. It appears that in the front page of the reference, i.e., at page-3 (in the brief of the Civil Judge) the description of Ac.0.03 decimals of Plot No. 283 was over-written and described as Ac.0.11 decimals. On a reference to the evidence of P.W.6, i.e., the Appellant Markanda, it appears that he still possesses an area of six and half decimals of land (paragraph-8 of the deposition). Markanda in his name and in the name of his children purchased altogether Ac.0.15 decimals of land, i.e., Ac.0.04 decimals from Plot No. 285 and Ac.0.11 decimals from Plot No. 283. Therefore, in all probability, after excluding Ac.0.04 decimals of land from Plot No. 285, the land that was acquired from Plot No. 283 may not exceed Ac.0.08 decimals. Both the parties agree that the L.A. Collector shall make a fresh measurement of the land under Plot No. 283 which was acquired from the possession of Appellant Markanda and to pay the compensation accordingly for that land on the rate at which the price of the land is being determined (in this Judgment). Such exercise be undertaken by the Land Acquisition Collector within a period of two months hence and make payment of the compensation in accordance with the operative part of this Judgment. 8. Mr. A.K. Mishra, Learned Standing Counsel for the State argues on behalf of the L.A. Collector that valuation @ Rs. 3,000/- per acre being the prevalent market rate by the date of acquisition in the year 1977, therefore, determination of market value @ Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) per acre by the Learned Sub-ordinate Judge, i.e., Rs. 100/-per decimal is excessive and that finding of Learned Sub-ordinate Judge should be set aside, in as much as there is no evidence in support of such a finding. Mr. Bose, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant ? Markanda Charan Sahu argues on the other hand that the Sale Deeds, Exts.1 and 3 executed in the year 1973 indicate that the value of the land was much more than Rs. 3,000/- (three thousand) per acre and the Appellant purchased at that higher rate. Mr. Bose, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant ? Markanda Charan Sahu argues on the other hand that the Sale Deeds, Exts.1 and 3 executed in the year 1973 indicate that the value of the land was much more than Rs. 3,000/- (three thousand) per acre and the Appellant purchased at that higher rate. Four years after when the land was acquired, it could not have a lesser value and, at least, escalation should have been granted @ 30% per annum, if not at the rate which the Appellant claimed. Accordingly he also argues to enhance the rate of the land. 9. Considering the rival submission of both the parties and keeping in view the nature of the land and its future prospect after acquisition, it is appropriate that an escalation of 20% should have been granted. Therefore, when it reveals from Ext.3 that the land was purchased @ Rs. 100/- (one hundred) per decimal, the amount of compensation should have been determined @ Rs. 200/- (two hundred) per decimal by 1977. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified to that extent. All other consequential benefits granted by the Learned Sub-ordinate Judge being statutory in nature, the L.A. Collector is to make payment by making proportional calculation accordingly. At the risk of repetition, it is stated that, so far as Plot No. 285 is concerned, the L.A. Collector shall determine whether the Government have acquired Ac.0.03 decimals or Ac.0.08 decimals or Ac.0.11 decimals purchased by the Appellant and accordingly to make calculation of the compensation and to pay the same to the Appellant Markanda Charan Sahu at the rate of Rs. 200/- (two hundred) per decimal together with interest, as admissible, and other statutory benefits. 10. The claim of the Appellant Markanda for the loss due to shifting of his rice-huller and damage and compensation on account of that are found to be without any merit in the absence of relevant and corroborating evidence and, therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in the order of the Learned Sub-ordinate Judge in rejecting such claim of the Appellant. In that respect Appellant Markanda does not get any relief. 11. Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of by modifying the impugned award in the manner indicated above. Both the parties are directed to bear their respective costs of litigation in this forum. 12. In that respect Appellant Markanda does not get any relief. 11. Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of by modifying the impugned award in the manner indicated above. Both the parties are directed to bear their respective costs of litigation in this forum. 12. The amount of compensation be calculated by the L.A. Collector and paid in the manner it has been indicated in the impugned award. The rate of interest is also modified to be @ 9% and 15% respectively in terms of the provision of Section 28 of the Act. That be also calculated and paid to Appellant Markanda Charan Sahu within a period of two months from today, failing which it is open to the Appellant to take recourse, under the provision of law for realization of such amount.