Dismissed

Union of India v. Annapurna Pradhan

Orissa HC2 Jan 2024LAA/140/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land acquisition appeal challenging court-below judgment awarding Rs.1,20,000 plus solatium and interest for Ac.1.37 decimals of compulsorily acquired land. After condoning filing delay, the Court reviewed the reasoned judgment below and declined to allow the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Union of India Vs Annapurna Pradhan — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

LAA No.140 of 2008

¶3

Union of India

¶4

…. Appellant

¶5

Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Annapurna Pradhan & ors.

¶8

…. Respondents

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

¶10

Order No. 02.

¶11

ORDER

¶12

02.01.2024 Misc. Case No.323 of 2008

¶13

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

Mr. Parhi, learned DSGI, being assisted by Mr. B.K. Padhi learned CGC, appears through virtual mode.

¶15

As is ascertained from record, the coordinate Bench, vide order dated 31.08.2018, ordered to issue notice on the question of limitation as well as in appeal to the Respondents by Registered Post with A.D., with a specific direction to file requisites by 06.09.2018.

¶16

Mr. S. Mohanty, learned Counsel is present and submits, he represents the Respondent No.2, who has already rendered appearance though caveat and admits to have received copy of the Appeal Memo.

¶17

Mr. Mohanty submits, he has no objection if the delay is condoned. But, in view of the reasons assigned by the court below, the memorandum of appeal deserves to be dismissed on merit, as there is no perversity in the impugned judgment passed by Court

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

below.

¶20

In view of such submission made by Mr. Mohanty, the delay in preferring the appeal is condoned. Misc. Case stands disposed of.

¶21

(S.K. MISHRA)

¶22

JUDGE

¶23

LAA No.140 of 2008

¶24

Order No. 03.

¶25

Though the matter has been listed for orders, as the delay has been condoned by order of date, on consent of the learned counsel for the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal at this stage.

¶26

Heard Mr. Padhi, learned DSGI so also Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2.

¶27

This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 04.02.2008 passed in M.J.C. No.195 of 1997, vide which the Court below directed the Opposite Parties (present Appellant) to pay Rs.1, 20,000/- for the whole of the case land of an area Ac.1.37 decimals. Apart from the same, it was held that the Petitioner (present Respondent No.2) is entitled to receive solatium at the rate of 30% of the amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the differential market value from the date of publication of the Notification U/s 4(1) of the Act, till the date of award or the date of taking over possession of the case land, whichever is earlier.

¶28

It was also held that the present Respondent No.2 is entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% per annum for a period of one year from the date of taking over the possession and at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of expiry of one year, till the amount is

¶29

Page 2 of 3

¶30

actually paid.

¶31

It was also observed that the said payment shall be subject to adjustment of the amount of compensation already received by the Petitioner (present Respondent No.2) or the amount, if any, deposited by the Opposite Parties (present Appellant).

¶32

The Court below ,while passing impugned judgment, framed two issues, which are extracted below:-

¶33

“i. Whether just and proper compensation for the case acquired land has been paid by the O.Ps, if not, what should be the market value of the case acquired land?

¶34

ii. Whether the petition of the petitioner is time barred?”

¶35

So far as the merit of the case, on perusal of the impugned judgment, it is ascertained that while answering the said issues the court below has passed a detailed reasoned judgment referring to the oral as well as documentary evidences on record, justifying the enhance of the compensation amount to Rs.1,20,000/- for the entire acquired land measuring an area of acre 1.37 decimals of land.

¶36

In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to allow the appeal.

¶37

Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed.

¶38

(S.K. MISHRA) JUDGE

¶39

Banita

¶40

Signature Not Verified

¶41

Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation: SR. STENOGRAPHER Reason: AUTHENTICATION Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 03-Jan-2024 18:15:35

¶42

Page 3 of 3

Union of India v. Annapurna Pradhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Union of India v. Annapurna Pradhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E.S.I. Vs Bansidhar

Jani Senapati Vs Land Acquisition Zone Officer.

Rani Naik Vs Somanath Swain

State Vs Dukhabandhu Sahu

Land Acquisition Officer,Kalahandi Vs Sujit Ku.Sahoo

Indra Tamba Vs Special Land Acquisition Zone Officer,Lower Indra Irrigation Project,Nuapada