Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 758 (ORI)

Asutosh Giri v. State of Orissa

2018-08-24

J.P.DAS

body2018
JUDGMENT J.P.DAS, J. - This appeal is directed against the order dated 04.04.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jaleswar in L.A. No.12 of ;2010 answering the reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act confirming the awards granted by the Land Acquisition Collector in respect of the land of the present appellant acquired by the Government of Odisha. 2. The Government of Odisha pursuance to the notification dated 19.05.2006 under Section 4 (1) read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act acquired Ac.28.066 decimals of land comprising of several plots situated in village Padhiharipur under Jaleswar Police Station in the district of Balasore for re-location of one check gate. Two plots measuring to an extent of Ac.0.57 decimals of the land of the appellant were within the said acquired lands. The Land Acquisition Collector made an award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act fixing Rs.15,13,000/- as compensation for the land, ie. @ Rs.9,000/- per decimal, Rs.4,92,623/- as compensation for the houses, Rs.22,000/- for the trees besides other statutory benefits, totalling to an amount of Rs.15,31,496/-.The appellant received the compensation under protest and made a request for reference claiming higher rate of compensation. In the reference, he submitted that his two plots situated adjoining National High Way No.60 land with an intention of setting up an hotel, the appellant had purchased the said land in the year 2004. It was an agricultural land and after getting his name mutated, the appellant got the land converted to homestead variety by depositing the required premium. He filled up the land with sand and earth, constructed pucca boundary wall, constructed accommodation for care taker and watchman and also bore a tube-well. He further submitted that he purchased the required materials for construction of boundary wall, care taker houses and other materials spending huge amount of money. Thereafter, he also planted different varieties of costly fruit bearing and other trees on his land. He also made an application to a Branch of United Bank of India for sanctioning of loan for his proposed hotel and the Bank had agreed to advance the loan of Rs.1,60,00,000/- for the said purpose. He also pleaded that the said land being on the side of the National High Way, the hotel business was supposed to earn huge profit since thousands of vehicles are passing on the road every day. He also pleaded that the said land being on the side of the National High Way, the hotel business was supposed to earn huge profit since thousands of vehicles are passing on the road every day. He further submitted that the village, where the acquired land situated, did not have any inhabitants and all the lands except the land of the appellant were agricultural land admittedly. But, homestead land in the adjoining village, namely, Santia was sold at Rs.46,136/- per decimals before publication of the notification and that was not considered by the Land Acquisition Collector while awarding the compensation. The appellant had also filed the certified copy of the said registered sale deed. On the aforesaid submissions, he claimed Rs.20,29,752/- towards the price of land, i.e. @ Rs.46,136 per decimals, Rs.20,00,000/- towards development, Rs.2,00,000/- towards cost of the trees, Rs.2,50,000/- towards cost of the building, Rs.6,00,000/- towards cost of the boundary wall, Rs.40,000/- towards the loss of his current and proposed business, these totalling to an amount of Rs.76,19,752. 3. In course of hearing, oral as well as documentary evidences were placed on behalf of both the sides before the learned trial Court and considering the materials placed before the Court along with the circumstances and submissions, the learned trial Court refused to enhance the compensation amount and confirmed the award made by the Land Acquisition Collector. 4. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Land Acquisition Collector as well as the learned trial Court did not consider the valuation of the properties in proper perspective. It was submitted that admittedly, one plot of homestead land was sold in the adjacent village at the rate of Rs.46,136/- per decimal and agricultural land in the case village were also sold at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per decimal during the period of notification. It was also submitted that the Land Acquisition Collector as well as the learned trial Court did not take into consideration, the huge amount spent by the appellant in developing the land for converting the same from agricultural to homestead land, apart from construction of houses and boundary wall, boring of tube-well as well as plantation of different varieties of valuable trees. 5. 5. Per contra, it was submitted on behalf of the State-respondents that all the materials have been well taken care of by the Land Acquisition Collector as well as by the learned trial court. It was also submitted that the appellant has put up imaginary amounts for the materials collected by him and examined some witnesses in support of some receipts, which were prepared for the purpose of the case. It was further submitted that admittedly, there was no other homestead land in the case village and one small piece of homestead land measuring about four decimals was shown as sold from the adjacent village @ Rs.46,136 per decimal. It was further submitted that after assessing the valuation of the constructions as well as of all the trees by proper experts, the amount of compensation has been awarded, thus, needing no interference. 6. Perused the materials as placed before the Land Acquisition Collector as well as the learned trial Court. Learned trial Court has discussed the materials in detail vis-a-vis the awards made by the Land Acquisition Collector. It is the settled position of law that the price of a small patch of land cannot be considered while awarding compensation for larger area of similar variety. In the instant case, admittedly there was no other homestead land in the case village. The appellant claimed different amounts, such as purchase of bricks, construction materials, transportation cost etc. for development of his land. But it may be mentioned that the valuation of the land has been assessed as homestead land after being developed by the appellant and hence, cost of developments could not have been separately considered. The amount of award as has been made in respect of the construction of houses and boundary wall, boring of tube-well and plantation of trees etc. have been assessed taking into consideration the expert opinions and I find no compelling reason to interfere with the same. It has also been observed by the learned trial Court that the petitioner did not produce the registered sale deed in respect of his land which could have thrown light on the actual valuation of the property during the year 2004 when the appellant had purchased the same. It has also been observed by the learned trial Court that the petitioner did not produce the registered sale deed in respect of his land which could have thrown light on the actual valuation of the property during the year 2004 when the appellant had purchased the same. However, the learned trial Court in paragraph-6 of the impugned judgment has observed that the Land Acquisition Collector awarded the compensation @ Rs.12,000/- per decimal considering the land of the petitioner as homestead land but in fact, the award has been made @ Rs.9,000/- per decimal. It is the case of the appellant that some agricultural lands were sold @ Rs.15,000/- per decimal at or about the period of notification. It is a common knowledge that when any proposed acquisition of lands comes to the knowledge of the local people, some documents are prepared showing higher valuations to get a higher rate of compensation. There was also no other transaction of homestead land in the adjacent village excepting the one as mentioned earlier. 7. Taking into consideration all these facts, I am of the view that the compensation of the acquired land of the appellant should be fixed assessing @ Rs.12,000/- (rupees twelve thousand) per decimal, which would serve the interest of justice. Hence, the amount of compensation of Rs.5,13,000/- awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector towards the cost of the land is enhanced to Rs.6,84,000/-, i.e. @ Rs.12,000/- per decimal, the enhanced amount to be paid to the appellant with 6% simple interest from the date of award. The other statutory benefits will be calculated accordingly as per percentage of the enhanced compensation. So far as the compensation awarded in respect of the other claims, I do not find any merit in the contention made on behalf of the appellant, since those have been well discussed and confirmed by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of with the modification as aforesaid. Appeal disposed of.