Union of India Vs Achyuta Sahu and Anr.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

LAA No.53 of 2011

Union of India	.......	Appellant
	-Versus-
Achyuta Sahu & anr.	.......	Respondents
*Advocate for the parties*
For Appellant	:	Mr. B.K. Pardhi, CGC
For Respondent No.1	:	Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocate
For Respondent No. 2 ------------	: ----------------	Ms. S. Devi, ASC

¶4

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

¶5

---------------------------------------------------------------------Date of Hearing and Judgment: 06.12.2024

¶6

¶7

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

¶8

Union of India challenging the enhancement of compensation

¶9

vide judgment dated 19.08.2011 passed by the Referral Court in LAR No.9 of 2010.

¶10

L.A.A. No. 53 of 2011

¶11

Page 1 of 8

¶12

2. The factual matrix of the case is that an area of Ac.0.55 dec. under plot nos. 268 and 257/310 appertaining to Khata No.1 of Mouza- Balajipita of Berna kisam of Land belonging to the private Respondent were compulsorily acquired by the Government for the purpose of construction of Lanjigarh Road- Junagarh Rail Link Project vide Notification No. 19714 dated 03.05.1994 and declaration no. 19158 dated 15.05.1995 in terms of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in short, ‘the L.A. Act, 1894’. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, shortly, LAO, awarded an amount of Rs.9445/towards compensation for the acquired land, which the private Respondent (Petitioner before the court below) received under protest. Thereafter, in a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, 1894, which was registered as L.A.R No. 09 of 2010, the referral Court, vide judgment dated 19.08.2011, allowed the claim of the Respondent on contest for enhancement of compensation @ Rs. 40,000/- per acre along with other statutory benefits in terms of the provisions under the L.A. Act, 1894. Hence, this Appeal.

¶13

L.A.A. No. 53 of 2011

¶14

Page 2 of 8

¶15

3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶16

4. Though several grounds have been urged in the memorandum of appeal, learned Counsel for the AppellantUnion of India, drawing attention of this Court to para 10 of the impugned judgment, submitted that the Court below enhanced the compensation based on Ext.1, which does not disclose the kisam of land, though compensation of Rs.60,000/- was awarded for acquisition of Ac.1.11 dec of land. Similarly, though the said judgment in M.J.C. No.186 of 1997 was exhibited through P.W.1 as Ext.1, during his crossexamination, the Claimant/Petitioner was unable to say the kisam of the land so also amount of compensation awarded as per Ext.1. Hence, the impugned judgment, being passed relying on Ext.1, is perverse and deserves to be set aside.

¶17

5. In response to such submission made by the learned CGC, Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the private Respondent, drawing attention of this Court to the observations made by the Court below in paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment, submitted that the Court below consciously took note of the said fact that Ext.1 does not

¶18

L.A.A. No. 53 of 2011

¶19

Page 3 of 8

¶20

disclose the kisam of land, for which the compensation was awarded. It also observed that kisam of land of the Private Respondent (Petitioner before the Court below) is “Berna”.

¶21

6. Learned Counsel for the Respondents further submitted that oral evidence was led before the Court below that the kisam of the acquired land was changed from Berna to Bahal. But, in absence of any documentary evidence to the said effect, the same was disbelieved by the Court below. However, relying on Ext.1, the Berna kisam of land being slightly inferior to Bahal kisam of land, the Court below, applying the principle of guess estimate, rightly determined the compensation @ Rs.40,000/- per acre, though it should have been Rs.54,000/- per acre in terms of Ext.1. There being no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment, the Appeal deserves to be dismissed and direction be given to the Appellant to comply the said judgment within a stipulated period.

¶22

7. Learned Counsel for the Respondents further submitted that though the Court below was of the view that the Private Respondent should be paid at par with the Petitioner of Ext.1, still it reduced the compensation to

¶23

L.A.A. No. 53 of 2011

¶24

Page 4 of 8

¶25

Rs.40,000/- per acre, instead of Rs.54,000/- per acre. Learned Counsel for the private Respondent, drawing attention of this Court to paragraph Nos.7 & 8 of the examination-in-chief of P.W. No.1, further submitted that lands of one Paramananda Sahu of kisam Berna, Mala & Atta were acquired, which was the subject matter in MJC No.186 of 1997 and the Court below awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/as market value of the land for acquiring per acre 1.11 decimal of land of Paramananda Sahu. It was specifically stated by P.W.1 that valuation of land per acre as per Ext.1 comes to Rs.54,054/- and the said evidence of P.W.1 remained un-touched during his cross-examination. Despite such evidence on record, the Court below enhanced the compensation to Rs.40,000/- per acre only, though it should have been more.

¶26

8. In view of such submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be apt to reproduce below the relevant portion from paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment:-

¶27

“10. xxxxxxx He further deposed that one Parmananda Sahu of his village whose land has been acquired under same

¶28

L.A.A. No. 53 of 2011

¶29

Page 5 of 8

¶30

notification and declaration had filed an application for enhancement of the compensation for his acquired land which was referred to this court and registered as M.J.C. No,186/97 and in the said case this court vide judgment dated 14.11.2000 has directed the O.P. to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/along with other statutory benefits as compensation. But during the course of cross-examination he has categorically admitted that he cannot say the kissam of land so also the amount of compensation awarded as per Ext. 1. He further admitted that he has not filed any document to show that the cost of the acquired land or the similar land was of more than the amount compensated to him and that he has not filed any document showing the quantity of different crops get from his acquired land so also the rate of the crops during that time. He further admitted that he has not filed any map showing the location of their acquired land and land relating to Ext. 1, Similarly, though P.W.2 one Baidyanath Sahu the cousin brother of the petitioner also deposed supporting to the claim of the petitioners in his evidence in chief but the same is not helpful to decide the fate of the present case. However, it is found that the petitioners have relied much on the ratio of the judgment passed by this court in M.J.C. No, 186/1997 (Ext. 1). There is no such material available or produced by the petitioners to establish that the kisam of their land is same that of the land of Parmananda Sahu relating to Ext. 1 and both the lands are of similar advantage. It is found from the judgment passed by this court in M.J.C. No. 186 of 1997 (Ext.1) that Act, 1.11 decs of land was acquired by the O.P. No.1 for the same project and on the reference of the protest petition of the petitioners to this court the

¶31

L.A.A. No. 53 of 2011

¶32

Page 6 of 8

¶33

compensation amount has been enhanced to Rs. 60,000/- for his total acquired land of Ac 1.11 dec. Since Ext.1 does not disclose the kisams of land for which the said compensation was awarded and as the kisam of the land of the present petitioners are Bahal which is superior quality to other lands. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and evidence adduced by both the parties it is felt by the court that the petitioners are entitled to get the compensation for their acquired land more than the amount given by O.P. No.1 and at par with the petitioner of Ext.1 xxxxxxxx ”.

¶34

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶35

9. In view of the discussions made above so also evidence on record and the finding of the Court below, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and the Appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶36

10. As is ascertained from the record, this Court, while issuing notice in the matter of limitation to the private Respondent, vide order dated 03.10.2012 passed in Misc. Case No.98 of 2012, stayed further proceeding in Execution Case No.9 of 2011 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna until further order, subject to the Appellant/Petitioner depositing the entire decretal amount

¶37

L.A.A. No. 53 of 2011

¶38

Page 7 of 8

¶39

along with up to date interest in the Executing Court within a period of six weeks from the said date.

¶40

11. Pursuant to the said order, if the State Appellant has already deposited the decretal amount with up to date interest, on production of certified copy of this order, the Executing Court shall do well to release the said amount forthwith in favour of the beneficiaries.

¶41

12. With the above observation and direction, the Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to cost.

¶42

…….….……………………

¶43

S.K. MISHRA, J.

¶44

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 6^th December, 2024 /Banita

¶45

Signature Not Verified

¶46

Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation: SR. STENOGRAPHER Reason: AUTHENTICATION Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK L.A.A. No. 53 of 2011 Date: 25-Dec-2024 15:27:21

¶47

Page 8 of 8

Union of India v. Achyuta Sahu and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Achyuta Sahu and Anr.

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

Rukshar Begum Vs Anwar Ali Khan

Ranjita Nanda Vs Chitta Ranjan Mishra

Dr. Pritam Kumar Panda Vs Rajeswari Dash

Union of India Vs Somnath Sahu and Anr.

Union of India Vs Lambodhar Sahu and Ors.

Union of India Vs Laxmidhar Sahu and Anr.