E.D,Nalco Vs Naresh — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

E.D,Nalco Vs Naresh — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned judgment left undisturbed with the awarded compensation upheld; Appellant directed to pay the awarded compensation to the Claimants-Respondents within two months from receipt of the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the compensation rate of Rs.22,000/- per acre fixed by the learned Civil Judge for the acquired lands in different Mouzas is on the higher side. +1 more

Court's answer

The Appellant is directed to pay the compensation amount as awarded in favour of the Claimants-Respondents within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order.

Ratio / Principle

Placing reliance on its order dtd.24.07.2014 in F.A. No. 288 of 1997 & batch, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Common order (Order No.11, dtd. 20.12.2024) of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, disposing analogously of First Appeals FA Nos. 150 & 152 of 1997, filed respectively against the common Judgment dtd. 13.01.1997 of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Angul rendered in L.A. Misc. Case No. 33 of 1991 and the self-same Judgment covering L.A. Misc. Case No. 152 of 1988, which had fixed compensation for the acquired lands at Rs. 22,000/- per acre. The Appellant (Muralidhar Mahar), represented by Mr. M.K. Panda appearing on behalf of Mr. N. Panda, contended that since lands in different Mouzas were acquired, the rate of Rs. 22,000/- per acre fixed by the learned Civil Judge was on the higher side. The Claimants-Respondents (Naresh Ch. Garnaik & Ors.), through Mr. S. Mahanta, relied on this Court's earlier order dtd. 24.07.2014 in F.A. No. 288 of 1997 & batch, wherein the same rate had been upheld on a similar issue, and submitted that the present prayer was therefore not entertainable. Having heard both sides, this Court, placing reliance on its order dtd. 24.07.2014 in F.A. No. 288 of 1997 & batch, declined to interfere with the impugned judgment, upheld the awarded compensation, and directed the Appellant to pay the compensation amount as awarded in favour of the Claimants-Respondents within two (2) months from the date of receipt of the order; both appeals were accordingly disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FA Nos.150& 152 of 1997

Muralidhar Mahar

..... Appellant

Mr. M.K. Panda, Advocate

on behalf of Mr. N. Panda, Advocate

-versus-

Naresh Ch. Garnaik&Ors.

..... Respondents

Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA Mr. S. Mahanta, Advocate

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER

20.12.2024

Order No.11

1 . This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2 . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3 . Since both the appeals arise out of a common judgment, both are heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order.

4. While FA No. 150 of 1997 has been filed challenging a common Judgment dtd.13.01.1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Angul in L.A. Misc. Case No. 33 of 1991, FA No. 152 of 1997 has been filed challenging the self-same Judgment of the learned Civil Judge so passed in L.A. Misc. Case No. 152 of 1988.

5 . Learned counsel for the Appellant contended that without proper appreciation of the materials placed before the learned court below, learned court below vide the impugned Judgment held the Claimants-Respondents entitled to get compensation at Rs.22,000/per acre in respect of the acquired lands in question.

Page 1 of 1.

5.1 . It is contended that since lands in different Mouzas were acquired by the Appellant, the compensation awarded by the learned Civil Judge by fixing the rate of the acquired land at Rs.22,000/- per acre is on the higher side.

6 . Mr. S. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for the ClaimantsRespondents on the other hand placing reliance on the Judgment passed by this Court on a similar issue in F.A. No. 288 of 1997 & batch contended that the compensation fixed at Rs.22,000/- per acre in respect of the acquired land in question has been confirmed vide order dtd.24.07.2014. It is accordingly contended that since similar issue has already been decided by this Court vide its order dtd.24.07.2014 in F.A. No. 288 of 1997, wherein the compensation fixed at Rs.22,000/- per acre has been upheld, prayer made in the present appeal is not entertainable.

7 . Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court placing reliance on the order passed by this Court on 24.07.2014 in F.A. No. 288 of 1997 & batch is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgement. While not interfering with the impugned Judgment and disposing the appeal, this Court directs the Appellant to pay the compensation amount as awarded in favour of the Claimants-Respondents within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order.

8 . Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Subrat Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 23-Dec-2024 18:52:59

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge

Page 2 of 2.