Union of India Vs Land Acquisition Officer,Khurda Road

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

L.A.A. No.33 of 2016

Union of India ....... Appellant -Versus-

L.A. Officer, Khurda Road Bolangir Rail Link Project, Nayagarh and others ....... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. B.S. Rayaguru, CGC For Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Ms. S. Devi, ASC For Respondent No.3 : None

¶5

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

¶6

¶7

Date of Hearing & Judgment: 16.12.2024

¶8

S.K. Mishra, J . This Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant-

¶9

Union of India challenging the judgment dated 30.01.2016 passed in L.A. Misc. Case No.70 of 2008, vide which the referral

¶10

Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.2,150/- per decimal, instead of Rs.1,346/- per decimal, as was determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, shortly, ‘LAO’.

¶11

2. The factual matrix, which lead to filing of this Appeal, is that the suit land appertains to Khata No.330/58, Plot No.1451, having an area of Ac.0.14 decimals of KisamSarad Dofasali under Mouza-Dhekana, P.S./District-Nayagarh, was acquired vide notification dated 26.09.2006 under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, shortly, hereinafter, ‘L.A. Act’ by the State Government for Khurda Road-Bolangir New B.G. Rail Link Project. For acquisition of the said land, Rs.27,372/- was awarded in favour of the claimant (private Respondent) as compensation and other benefits. The private Respondent (Claimant before the Court below) filed a written objection on 07.05.2008 before the LAO, Nayagarh, which was referred to the Court below U/s.3(c) of the L.A. Act. by the Collector, Nayagarh vide letter dated 30.05.2008, which was registered as L.A. Misc. Case No.70 of 2008.

¶12

3. After giving opportunities to the parties to lead their evidence, the Court below, taking into consideration the working sheet, which was marked as Ext.B, so also oral evidence on record with regard to potentiality of land, enhanced the compensation to Rs.2,150/- per decimal.

¶13

4. Though several grounds have been urged in the memorandum of appeal, learned CGC for the Appellant-Union of

¶14

L.A.A. No.33 of 2016

¶15

Page 2 of 6

¶16

India, confining his argument and drawing attention of this Court to Ext.B, which indicates the bench mark valuation of the relevant year, submitted that the referral Court ought to have enhanced the compensation to Rs.2,000/- per decimal based on Ext.B. However, in absence of any evidence with regard to potentiality of the land, the Court below awarded Rs.150/- per decimal, over and above Rs.2000/- per decimal, towards locational advantage/potentiality of the said land. Hence, the impugned judgment being perverse, deserves interference.

¶17

5. As is evident from the impugned judgment so also L.C.R, the private Respondent, relying on Ext.1 i.e. R.S.D. dtd.03.11.2006, claimed that the compensation should be Rs.4,000/- per decimal. However, the Court below did not accept the said document on the ground that, the schedule attached to Ext.1 clearly shows that the land in question comes under a patch of agricultural land (chaka), locally known as Chak Nali, whereas the suit lands come under Belamala Chaka. The kisam and locality of the lands are different and the same being a post notification sale deed of the year 2006, Ext.1 was rightly not taken into consideration by the Court below. However, ultimately, relying on Ext.B so also oral evidence on record and relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in

¶18

L.A.A. No.33 of 2016

¶19

Page 3 of 6

¶20

Nirmal Singh Vs. State of Haryana (AIR 2015 SC 453) so also in Mehrawal Khewaji (Regd.), Faridkot & others Vs. State of Punjab [2012(II) CLR (S.C) 41], the Court below was of the view that the private Respondent is entitled to compensation @ Rs.2,150/- per decimal and the said rate would be the proper market value of the land in question. Paragraph No.11.2 & 11.3 of the impugned judgment, being relevant, are reproduced below for ready reference.

¶21

“ 11.2. To reach at a conclusion aboutthe market value this court has to imagine the amount what a bona fide purchaser will offer to purchase the land in question to the seller. Working sheet (Ext B) gives consideration amount for each of transactions those took place in sample period. The working sheet shows that value of Sarada III Dofasali land in the last half of the year 2005 and first half of 2006. was Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. This was the highest value paid for any land in sample year of 2003 to 2006 (up to the date of notification U/S 4(1) of LA Act dt. 26.09.2006). This is the contemporaneous to the period to date of notification U/s.-4(1) of LA Act. Such baseline value added with some price considering the little advantageous location of the agricultural land in question would be the proper approach to fix the market value for the land in question.

¶22

This approach also gets support of the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court given in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot & Oths Vrs. State of Punjab 2012(II) CLR(S.C)-41.

¶23

11.3. The working sheet reveals that during the sample period of 2003-06 in Dhenkana village, the

¶24

L.A.A. No.33 of 2016

¶25

Page 4 of 6

¶26

highest rate of transaction was of Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre (one acre100 decimals) or Rs 2000/- (two thousand) per decimal. The claimant asserts that the land in question situates near a public road that will fetch some additional value in market. That additional value is calculated at Rs.150/- per decimal of land. So in total the value of land in question is determined at the rate of Rs 2150/-(Rupees two thousand one hundred and fifty) per decimal. In my consideration that amount would be the proper market value for the land in question”.

¶27

(Emphasis supplied)

¶28

Apart from the same, on perusal of deposition of P.W. No.3, it is ascertained that in para-2 of the examination-inchief, P.W. No.3 has stated that the acquired land situates near the village Basti (residential house of villagers) and has the potential value of being used as a homestead and for such use the land in question requires no further improvement. Further, during his cross-examination, P.W. No.3 has stated that house of one Uday Muduli and Sankar Swain etc. are the adjacent house owners of the acquired land. No such suggestion was given to P.W. No.3 that he is stating falsehood. The said statement of the P.W. No.3 during his cross-examination corroborates the statement of the claimant in his examination in chief that the acquired land had potentiality and locational advantage.

¶29

L.A.A. No.33 of 2016

¶30

Page 5 of 6

¶31

7. Hence, in view of the admitted facts on record so also observation made by the Court below, as extracted above, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment passed in L.A. Misc. Case No.70 of 2008 and the present Appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶32

8. Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to cost.

¶33

9. Since the private Respondent failed to appear in this case despite notice, Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this judgment to the Court below so also to the private Respondent.

¶34

…….….……………………

¶35

S.K. MISHRA, J.

¶36

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

¶37

The 16^th December, 2024 /Kanhu

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

Digitally Signed Signed by: KANHU BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 25-Feb-2025 12:48:32

¶40

L.A.A. No.33 of 2016

¶41

Page 6 of 6

Union of India v. Land Acquisition Officer,Khurda Road

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Land Acquisition Officer,Khurda Road

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Legal Manager(T.P .Cell) M/S. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Cuttack Vs Ramesh Malla

The Divisional Manager,M/S.New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Cuttack Vs Radhika Rana

Nimain Charan Behera Vs Manas Ranjan Biswal

The L.a.O.,B.Patna Vs Tikeram Majhi

Kadambini Moharana Vs Sukanta Ku.Moharana

Special Land Acquisition Officer,,Nuapada Vs Kaibal Ketki @ Goud