Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 124 (ORI)

LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR v. APARNA DEVI

2008-02-13

SANJU PANDA

body2008
JUDGMENT : Sanju Panda, J. - The First Appeal is directed against the award dated 25.11.1994 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak in Land Acquisition Misc. Case No. 237 of 1992 in a reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 2. Land appertaining to major Settlement Plot Nos. 802, 804 and 806 with a total area of Ac. 39 decimals under Khata No. 401 of mouza-Patrisahi of P.S. Dhamnagar, District-Balasore, at present in the district of Bhadrak, was acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector, Balasore for the purpose of construction of approach road to submersible bridge over river Genguti. Government of Orissa for the acquisition of the aforesaid land made declaration on 22.12.1990 by Declaration No. 60007 and the same was published in the Orissa Gazette on 14th January, 1991 at page No. 40 of Part-II. Land Acquisition Collector determined the compensation at Rs. 20,807/- and the said award was made in favour of one Ramachandra Majhi, son of Puni Maihi and Basantilata Panda of Narasinghpur P.S. Dhamnagar, Dist. Balasore. The present objector, namely, Arnapurna Devi filed her objection stating therein that she purchased the land vide registered sale deed No. 3722 dated 29.6.1977 from Basantilata Panda and mutated her name in respect of the said land. But she did not produce the sale deed u/s 11 of the Land Acquisition Act. She claimed higher compensation and filed her objection before the Land Acquisition Collector and her objection was referred to the Civil Court by the Land Acquisition Collector u/s 18 of the Act for determination of just compensation. Notice was issued to the aforesaid Ramachandra Majhi and Basantilata Panda but they neither appeared nor filed any show cause. 3. Claimant Arnapurna Devi in support of her claim for higher compensation examined herself as P.W.1 and filed three documents which were marked as Exts. 1 to 3. Ext. 1 and 2 are sale deeds. Ext. 3 is the mutation patta. Land Acquisition Collector neither examined any witness nor filed any documentary evidence. Taking into consideration the sale deeds, Exts. 1 and 2, in her objection she claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 1 lakh per acre in respect of agricultural land and Rs. 3 lakhs per acre in respect of homestead land. As per tne said objection, Ac. 0.30 decimals of land is agricultural land and Ac. Taking into consideration the sale deeds, Exts. 1 and 2, in her objection she claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 1 lakh per acre in respect of agricultural land and Rs. 3 lakhs per acre in respect of homestead land. As per tne said objection, Ac. 0.30 decimals of land is agricultural land and Ac. 0.9 decimals of land is homestead land. Both the sale deeds were issue in her favour wherein it was mentioned that she purchased the said land from one Basantilata Panda and mutated her name in the year 1988. The present objector is the owner of the land, as the previous land owner has neither claimed himself to be the owner of the said land and nor has she claimed any compensation. The claimant in her oral evidence has stated that value of the homestead land per decimal was Rs. 3,000/- in the year of acquisition and the value of the agricultural land was not less than Rs. 1500/- per decimal in the said year and the registered sale deed shows that the purchaser had purchased Ac.0.2 decimals of homestead land for a consideration of Rs. 2500/- in mouza Patrisahi. Thus, it appears that the value of the homestead land in the year 1988 was at Rs. 25,000/- per acre and the objector has relied on the said sale deed to determine the market value of the acquired land, as there was no rebuttal evidence to the above evidence adduced by the claimant. So far as the agricultural land is concerned, objector-claimant has stated that the said land was a double-crop land and the value of the agricultural land is Rs. 50,000/- per acre. Learned Civil Judge accepted the claim of the claimant and determined the market value of the homestead land at Rs. 1,25,000/- per acre and Rs. 50,000/- per acre in respect of the agricultural land and also directed that the claimant is entitled to all statutory benefits. 4. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Appellants vehemently argued that while determining the market value of the acquired land, learned Civil Judge should have deducted some amount from the price revealed in the sale deeds exhibited by the claimant taking into consideration that a willing purchaser has given higher price to his choice of land. 4. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Appellants vehemently argued that while determining the market value of the acquired land, learned Civil Judge should have deducted some amount from the price revealed in the sale deeds exhibited by the claimant taking into consideration that a willing purchaser has given higher price to his choice of land. In the present case, learned Civil Judge has accepted the value of the land as quoted in the sale deed and without deducting anything and without considering advantages and disadvantages available to the land determined the market value of the acquired land at par with the sale deed. 5. Learned Counsel for the claimant has also forcefully argued that since the Land Acquisition Collector has not adduced any evidence contrary to the evidence adduced by the claimant, the learned Civil Judge has rightly determined the market value of the land which is just and reasonable, hence interference with the award passed by the Court below is not necessary. 6. From the records, it appears that the learned Civil Judge has accepted the evidence adduced by the claimant in toto and determined the market value of the acquired land as revealed from the registered sale deeds which filed by the land ouster. Law is well settled that a willing purchaser may give higher price for his piece of choice land but while determining the market value of the land some deduction should be made by the Court when no other materials are available before it. To come to a just determination of the market value of the land, the Court has to apply some rational guess-work in absence of any material. But in the present case since the claimant has produced two registered sale deeds, the Court below should have deducted some amount from the value of the land as it reveals from the said sale deeds. 7. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record the value of the homestead land is determined by this Court at Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) per acre and that of the agricultural land is fixed at Rs. 45,000/- (Rupees forty-five thousand) per acre. The claimant is also entitled to all other statutory benefits as fixed by the learned Court below. With the above modification the appeal is allowed in part. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) per acre and that of the agricultural land is fixed at Rs. 45,000/- (Rupees forty-five thousand) per acre. The claimant is also entitled to all other statutory benefits as fixed by the learned Court below. With the above modification the appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs.