Jyotirmayee Patnaik Vs Union of India

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

¶2

L.A.A. No.76 of 2017

¶3

Union of India ....... Appellant

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

Jyotirmayee Pattnaik and others ....... Respondents (Respondent No.1(a) to 1(c) are the Appellants in L.A.A. No.78 of 2017) For Appellant : Mr. J. Nayak, Central Govt. Counsel For Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(c) : Mr. S.R. Singhsamanta, Advocate For Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Mr. B. Panigrahi, Addl. Standing Counsel

¶6

L.A.A. No.78 of 2017

¶7

(Cross Appeal)

¶8

Jyotirmayee Patnaik & others ....... Appellants

¶9

-Versus-

¶10

Union of India & others ....... Respondents

¶11

(Respondent No.1 is the Appellant in L.A.A No.76/2017)

¶12

For Appellants : Mr. S.R. Singhsamanta, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. J. Nayak, (Cross Appellant) Central Govt. Counsel For Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Mr. B. Panigrahi, Addl. Standing Counsel

¶13

----------------------------

¶14

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

¶15

¶16

Date of Hearing: 31.07.2024 Date of Judgment: 02.09.2024

¶17

S.K. Mishra, J . L.A.A. No.76 of 2017 has been preferred by the

¶18

Union of India challenging the judgment dated 10.07.2017 passed in L.A. Misc. Case No.90 of 2007, vide which the referral Court enhanced the compensation amount in favour of the private Respondents to Rs.1,500/- per decimal as against the compensation of Rs.2,38,535/- awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, shortly, “LAO”, for acquisition of Ac.1.94 decimals of land pertaining to the present Respondents. So far as L.A.A. No.78 of 2017, the said Cross Appeal has been preferred by the private Respondents/Cross Appellants, who are the Respondents in L.A.A. No.76 of 2017 challenging the very same judgment passed by the referral Court in L.A. Misc. Case No.90 of 2007 for further enhancement of the compensation amount @ Rs.15,000/- per decimal.

¶19

2. In both the Appeal as well as the Cross Appeal, as detailed above, since the impugned judgment is common i.e. dated 10.07.2017 passed in L.A. Misc. Case No.90 of 2007,

¶20

L.A.A. Nos.76 & 78 of 2017

¶21

Page 2 of 25

¶22

both the said Appeal and Cross Appeal were taken up for hearing together and this common judgment is passed accordingly. 3. The factual matrix, which led to filing of these Appeals, is that pursuant to notification under 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter, ‘the Act, 1894’), an area of Ac.1.94 decimals of land, which belonged to private Respondents/Cross Appellants was acquired by the LAO for the purpose of Khurda Road-Bolangir New B.G. Rail Link Project and a compensation of Rs.2,38,535/- was awarded in favour of the Respondents/Cross Appellants, which was received under protest on the ground that the awarded amount was very much low. The present Appellant, who was the Opposite Party No.1 before the referral Court, contested the said case by way of filing show cause whereas, the present Respondent Nos.2 & 3, who were also the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 before the referral Court, contested the said case by filing show cause separately on the ground that the case is not maintainable, as there is no cause of action for filing such a case and the case is hit by the theory of estoppel. A stand was taken before the referral Court that the

¶23

L.A.A. Nos.76 & 78 of 2017

¶24

Page 3 of 25

¶25

Respondents/Cross Appellants received compensation amount without any objection and the claim of the present Respondents No. 1(a) to 1(c), who are the LRs of the original Petitioner before the referral Court, as to potentiality of the said land, based on its locational advantage, was treated to be incorrect. That apart, it was stated in the said show cause that the Respondents/Cross Appellants (Petitioners before the Court below) have received the compensation amount from the LAO as per the assessment and guidelines of Government to their full satisfaction and they never complained about low rate and no document was filed before the LAO to claim higher compensation at the time of inquiry. It was also stated that the price of the acquired land was determined after taking into consideration the sale transactions on the basis of bench mark valuation. After taking into consideration the pleadings on record, the Court below framed the following points to be determined by it.

¶26

1) Whether the reference is maintainable?

¶27

2) What is the just, proper and fair market value of the acquired lands on the date of publication of notification?

¶28

3) Whether the claimants/petitioners are entitled to higher compensation?

¶29

L.A.A. Nos.76 & 78 of 2017

¶30

Page 4 of 25

¶31

4) What relief the claimants are entitled for?

¶32

4. After answering point No.1 in favour of the

¶33

Respondents/Counter Claimants, the referral Court dealt with point Nos.2 and 3 together. After taking into consideration the pleadings, oral as well as documentary evidence on record, so also the judgments of the Supreme Court in Charanjit Kaur (dead) through L.Rs. Vrs. Union of India and others reported in 2003 SAR(Civil) Suppl. 59 and in Bhule Ram Vrs. Union of India and another reported in 2014 AIR (Civil) 434, wherein it was held that the locational/geographical situation, importance, existing use of the land, prospects and purposes, for which the said land may be used, condition, advantages/disadvantages and potentiality in foreseeable future are the criteria to be taken into consideration while determining the market value of the acquired land so also judgment of this Court reported in 2003

¶34

(Suppl) OLR 978 (NOC) Land Acquisition Officer Vrs. Trilochan Sahu, the referral Court held as follows:-

¶35

“ In the case at hand Kissam of the acquired land is Taila-II. The acquisition made on 10.11.2006 and the claimants received compensation amount of Rs.56,260/- for Ac.94 decimals. As per Ext.1,

¶36

L.A.A. Nos.76 & 78 of 2017

¶37

Page 5 of 25

¶38

Ac.0.01 decimals of land of Kissam-Taila-II have been sold for consideration amount of Rs.15,000/- in the year of 2000 in the case mouza. The evidence of P.Ws is that the acquired land is cultivable land and near to a public road are not fully established. In the case at hand, neither the District SubRegistrar, nor any authorized officer is examined to prove the contents of Ext.A & Ext.B. As such basing upon only these two documents the market value cannot be ascertained.

¶39

From Ext.A, it is revealed that there was no sale transaction of Taila-II Kissam land in the case mouza during the year 2002, 2003 and 2004 (up to the date of notification). Further it is revealed that the land acquisition officials assed the market value of the acquired lands as per “Rent Chart” of lands prescribed by the Settlement Organisation. But nothing material is brought on the record to substantiate their plea nor any witness is examined in this connection to establish the said stand of the L.A. Officer. In the case at hand, the opposite parties failed to produce any authenticated document supporting the market value fixed. The learned counsel for the claimant cited the decision reported in 2003(Suppl) OLR 978 (NOC), Land Acquisition Officer Vrs. Trilochan Sahu, wherein it is held that “Non-production of any document supporting the market value fixed by the L.A.O- Evidence of witnesses of the claimants believable”.

¶40

Thus, in the circumstances, while there is no direct evidence to ascertain the market value of the acquired land, the only course is to ascertain it by

¶41

L.A.A. Nos.76 & 78 of 2017

¶42

Page 6 of 25

¶43

guess estimate. Taking into consideration the available oral evidence and documents, it is clearly found that the market value of the acquired land was higher than the value given to the claimants. As reveals from the evidence, the acquired land is about 2 K.Ms away from N.H. As per Ext.1, the market value of the land which is superior (due to roadside land) than the acquired land is Rs. 15,000/- per decimal in the year 2000. The L.A.O has valued the acquired land @ Rs.290-per decimal. Thus, considering the locational advantage and the market value of other lands in the said mouza, I am of the opinion that the claimants are entitled for higher compensation @ Rs.1,500/per decimal towards the valuation of the acquired land”.

¶44

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶45

5. Point No.4 was answered holding that it would be proper to fix Rs.1500/- per decimal towards compensation for acquisition of the land of the private Respondents (Petitioners before the Court below). So far as valuation made by the L.A.O, the referral Court was of the view that in absence of sufficient materials, there is no need to interfere with regard to valuation of the house made by the L.A.O. Similarly, the claim of the present Respondents/Cross Appellants for compensation regarding bore well was also disallowed by the referral Court.

¶46

L.A.A. Nos.76 & 78 of 2017

¶47

Page 7 of 25

¶48

6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment in L.A. Misc. Case No.90 of 2007, the Union of India has preferred L.A.A. No.76 of 2017 with a prayer to set aside the said judgment dated 10.07.2017. Per contra, the Respondents/Cross Appellants have preferred L.A.A. No.78 of 2017 with a prayer to further enhance the compensation to Rs.15,000/- per decimal by modifying the impugned judgment dated 10.07.2017 passed in L.A. Misc. Case No.90 of 2007.

¶49

7. Before dealing with the Appeals on merit, it would be useful to mention here that the Respondents/Cross Appellants filed I.A. No.244 of 2022 in L.A.A. No.78 of 2017 to admit the judgment dated 13.10.2017 passed by the referral Court in L.A. Misc. Case No.91 of 2007 as additional evidence and mark the said judgment as Exhibit.4.

¶50

8. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, this Court, vide order dated 18.01.2023, allowed the said prayer made in I.A. No.244 of 2022, as a plea was taken in the said I.A. that the same referral Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.9,000/- per decimal pertaining to plot No.38 of same mouza of same Kissam, which was acquired under the same notification for the same purpose, whereas, in the present

¶51

L.A.A. Nos.76 & 78 of 2017

¶52

Page 8 of 25

¶53

case, the referral Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.1500/- per decimal only. The certified copy of the judgment dated 13.10.2017 passed in L.A.A Misc. Case No.91 of 2007 was accepted as additional evidence, to be examined at the time of final hearing of the Appeal, as the said judgment was pronounced by the referral Court on 13.10.2017, which is admittedly after passing of the impugned judgment dated 10.07.2017 in the present Appeal.

¶54

However, after allowing the said I.A. in L.A.A. No.78 of 2017, it was brought to the notice of this Court by the Appellant-Union of India that the judgment dated 13.10.2017 passed in L.A. Misc. Case No.91 of 2007 is also under challenge in L.A.A. No.89 of 2017 and the said Appeal is still pending for final adjudication. Hence, on being so prayed, this Court ordered for listing of L.A.A. No.89 of 2017 along with the present Appeals and on consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the hearing of the said Appeal i.e. L.A.A No.89 of 2017, was taken in ahead of the present Appeals and the said Appeal stood dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 24.07.2024 upholding the judgment passed by the referral Court in L.A.A Misc. Case No.91 of

¶55

L.A.A. Nos.76 & 78 of 2017

¶56

Page 9 of 25

¶57

2007, vide which the referral Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.9,000/- per decimal for acquiring same Kissam of land under the same mouza for the same purpose under the same notification.

¶58

9. Mr. Nayak, learned CGC, reiterating the grounds taken in the Memorandum of Appeal, submitted that findings of the Court below regarding valuation was on assumption and without any valid reason and is erroneous and a product of non-application of mind. Though the certified copies of the working sheet and sale statistics of the said mouza were marked as Exhibits-A & B respectively, instead of making a comparison regarding valuation of the suit land, the referral Court passed the award in a whimsical manner. To substantiate his argument, Mr. Nayak cited a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2014) 11 SCC 307 ( Bhule Ram

¶59

Vrs. Union of India and another ).

¶60

10. Mr. Nayak further submitted that though PWs 1 & 2 have not sufficiently proved the enhanced claim of the Claimant, the referral Court erroneously relied upon the evidences laid by the P.Ws. and illegally enhanced the compensation in favour of the Respondents (Petitioners before

¶61

L.A.A. Nos.76 & 78 of 2017

¶62

Page 10 of 25

¶63

the Court below). Mr. Nayak further submitted that though the Authority concerned assessed the valuation of the acquired land in question by taking into consideration the RSDs of nearest land and awarded accordingly, in absence of any evidence led by the Respondent that his acquired land in question is more valuable, the trial Court, being biased, enhanced the compensation, which is liable to be set aside.

¶64

11. Mr. Nayak, learned CGC submitted that the referral Court failed to take note of the settled position of law, as held by the Supreme Court, that the market value of the acquired land is to be determined taking into consideration various factors and the decision relied upon by the referral Court is not applicable to the case of the Respondents (Petitioners before the Court below), as they failed to prove the conditions in terms of the ratio of the said judgment to justify the demand for enhancement of the compensation amount.

¶65

12. In response to the submissions made by Mr. Nayak, learned CGC for the Appellant-Union of India, Mr. Singhsamanta, learned Counsel for the Respondents/Cross Appellants in L.A.A. No.78 of 2017 submitted that the case of his client is similar to the case of Respondents in L.A.A. No.89

¶66

L.A.A. Nos.76 & 78 of 2017

¶67

Page 11 of 25

¶68

of 2017, who are the Petitioners in L.A.A Misc. Case No.91 of 2007.

¶69

Mr. Singhsamanta, learned Counsel further

¶70

submitted that the RSD, which was marked as Exhibit.1 in L.A. Misc. Case No.91 of 2007 on behalf of the Petitioner, is

¶71

the same RSD, which was marked as Exhibit.1 through P.W. No.2 in L.A. Misc. Case No.90 of 2007.

¶72

13. Mr. Singhsamanta, drawing attention of this Court to Exhibit.2, which is true copy of trace map obtained by his client under the R.T.I Act from the office of the L.A. Zonal Office, submitted that his client obtained the said trace map so also information regarding distance of the land/plots acquired by the State from N.H. 57 vis-à-vis the distance of plot No.38, which was the subject matter in L.A.A. No.89 of 2017. Referring to the said information obtained under the R.T.I. Act so also the sketch map, which have been marked as Ext. 2 without any objection, Mr. Singhsamanta, learned Counsel submitted that the same referral Court, so far as plot No.38 of village-Bhiruda under khata No.157/36, which was around 100 meters away from the N.H. 57, enhanced the compensation to Rs.9,000/- per decimal, whereas the plots of

¶73

L.A.A. Nos.76 & 78 of 2017

¶74

Page 12 of 25

¶75

his client, acquired by the State, being adjacent to N.H.57, the referral Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.1500/- only, though it was well demonstrated before the said Court by leading oral as well as documentary evidence to the effect that because of the locational advantage of the acquired plots so also potentiality and market value of the land in terms of Exhibit-1, which is the certified copy of the RSD No.3811 dated 10.10.2000, it should fetch more price.

¶76

14. In view of such submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, on perusal of the sketch map, marked as Exhibit-2, it is ascertained that out of 8 plots of the Respondents/Cross Appellants, Plot No.04/1159 & Plot No.04/1160 are adjacent to N.H. 57 whereas, other plots of the Respondents are adjacent to the said two plots, which are nearest to N.H. 57. It is further revealed from the said sketch

¶77

map that Plot No.38 under Khata No.157/10, which was the subject matter in LAA No.89 of 2017, is at a distance more than the distance of all the plots of the private Respondents acquired by the State and as per the information provided under the R.T.I. Act., there is no adjoining road to Plot No.38. Admittedly, the Plot No.38 under khata No.157/10 has no

¶78

L.A.A. Nos.76 & 78 of 2017

¶79

Page 13 of 25

¶80

commercial potentiality, having no adjoining road to the said plot. Still, the referral Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.9000/- per decimal in L.A. Misc. Case No.78 of 2017 for acquisition of the said plot. At this juncture, it would be apt to reproduce below the information provided by the Public Information Officer, vide letter dated 28.05.2021, for ready

¶81

reference:-

¶82

“OFFICE OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ZONE OFFICER KHURDA ROAD BOLANGIR NEW B.G. RAIL LINK PROJECT NAYAGARGH

¶83

No.213/ Dt. 28.05.2021

¶84

To

¶85

Sri Asit Ranjan Pattnaik S/o- Late Subhransu Mohan Pattnaik At-Gopinath Lane Old town, Nayagarh P.O-Nayagarh-2 P.S/Dist-Nayagarh Pin No.752070

¶86

Sub- Submission of information under R.T.I. Act.

¶87

Ref:Your application dtd.20.04.2021 & this office letter No.193 dt.03.05.21

¶88

With reference to the subject cited above, I am to furnish below herewith the required information under R.T.I Act available in this office as desired by you in your application dtd.20.04.21

¶89

Information under R.T.I. Act.

¶90

Village-Bhiruda under khata No.157/36

¶91

6(iii) Plot No. Distance from N.H. 57 Remarks (1) 5/1157 68 mtrs Police Station & Electric Structure

¶92

L.A.A. Nos.76 & 78 of 2017

¶93

Page 14 of 25

¶94

4/1159

¶95

Nearest to N.H. 57

¶96

substation are situated opposite side of N.H. 57 and in front of plot No.04, 04/1159 & 04/1160

¶97

4/1160 -do-

¶98

6 15 mtrs

¶99

7 80 mtrs

¶100

3/1154 60 mtrs

¶101

3/1155 20 mtrs 9/1156 84 mtrs

¶102

Khata No.157/10

¶103

(2) 38 100 mtrs

¶104

(3) There is no adjoining road for plot No.38.

¶105

(4) Trace map showing 5/1157, 4/1159, 4/1160, 6,7,3/1154, 3/1155, 9/1156 under khata No.157/36 is enclosed”.

¶106

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶107

15. As is revealed from the said information received

¶108

under the R.T.I Act, which was marked as Ext.2 on admission, Plot No.38 under khata No.157/10 under villageBhiruda is around 100 meters away from the N.H. 57 whereas, Plot Nos.04, 04/1159 & 04/1160 of the Respondents/ Cross-Appellants are nearest to N.H. 57 whereas, other plots i.e. Plot Nos.5/1157, 6,7,3/1154, 3/1155 & 9/1156 are adjacent to the said nearest plots i.e.

¶109

L.A.A. Nos.76 & 78 of 2017

¶110

Page 15 of 25

¶111

plot No. 04/1159 & 04/1160 and all the said plots are nearer to N.H. 57 in comparison to the distance of Plot No.38 under khata No.157/10 in village-Bhiruda.

¶112

16. Admittedly, the referral Court in LAA No.89 of 2017, taking into consideration Exhibit-1 i.e. RSD No.3811 of 2000, which was also marked as Exhibit-1 in L.A. Misc. Case No.91 of 2007, enhanced the compensation to Rs.9,000/- per decimal. Despite the admitted facts on record as to locational advantage of the plots of the Respondents/Cross Appellants, acquired by the State so also their distance from N.H.57, the referral Court has only enhanced the compensation to Rs.1500/- per decimal.

¶113

17. That apart, on perusal of the L.C.R in L.A. Misc. Case No.90 of 2007, it is ascertained that all the P.Ws. have stated that the acquired land is having potentiality, being fit for commercial, industrial and residential purposes, as in a portion of the said plot, small industries are also run by the Petitioners, having their residential house there. Moreover, it was also deposed by the P.Ws. that the acquired land is situated by the side of N.H. No.244 having access to the road, which run from Khurda to Bolangir and fit for homestead

¶114

L.A.A. Nos.76 & 78 of 2017

¶115

Page 16 of 25

¶116

purpose and the price of the said land should be more than Rs.20,00,000/-per acre. The said evidences of PW No.1 to 3 remained undemolished during their cross-examination.

¶117

18. That apart, the trace map of the acquired land, along with the other information provided by the Authority concerned under the R.T.I. Act, well demonstrate that the suit lands of the present Respondents/Cross Appellants have better locational advantage so also commercial potentiality than Plot No.38 under Khata No.157/10 in village-Bhiruda and in the said case, the referral Court enhanced compensation to Rs.9,000/- per decimal. L.A.A. No.89 of 2017 being preferred by the Union of India against the said judgment dated 13.10.2017 passed by the referral Court in L.A. Misc. Case No.91 of 2007, this Court, vide judgment dated 24.07.2024, dismissed LAA No.89 of 2017 and directed for compliance of the said judgment passed in L.A. Misc. Case No.91 of 2007.

¶118

19. Hence, after perusal of the L.C.R and in view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, so also observations of this Court, as detailed above, this Court is of the view that the suit lands of the present

¶119

L.A.A. Nos.76 & 78 of 2017

¶120

Page 17 of 25

¶121

Respondents/Cross Appellants, being more closer to the National High Way, having commercial potentiality, the referral Court ought to have enhanced the compensation more than what has been ordered vide the impugned judgment.

¶122

20. Admittedly, the RSD marked as Exhibit-1, is of the year 2000, whereas, the notification for acquisition of land was made in the year 2004. But the lands of the present Respondents/Cross Appellants were acquired in the year 2006 pursuant to the notification made in the year 2004. As per the settled position of law, if the sale deed, taken into consideration for enhancement of compensation, is of the preceding year i.e. prior to the notification made under section 4(1) of the Act, 1894, while taking into consideration the said RSD, the referral Court has to enhance the compensation by 10% for each year, for the interregnum period as was held by the Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority Vs. Ram Sharma and others , reported in AIR 2004 SC 4114. Paragraph-7 of the said judgment, being relevant, is extracted below:

¶123

“7. The land, which is the subject matter of this appeal is acquired for the same purpose as in the aforementioned appeals, but the Notification under S.

¶124

L.A.A. Nos.76 & 78 of 2017

¶125

Page 18 of 25

¶126

4(1) of the Act was issued on 24-11-1981, i.e., subsequent to S. 4(1) Notification dated 17-11-1980. Obviously, there would be escalation of price in regard to this land. Hence, we think it just and appropriate to give 10% increase in the market value in respect of the land in this appeal . In the result this appeal is also allowed and the impugned judgment is modified by reducing the amount of compensation from Rs. 345/- per sq. yard (amounting to Rs. 3,45,000/- per bigha) to Rs. 76,550/- per bigha + 10% escalation. The respondent is entitled to statutory benefits available under the Act based on the amount of compensation as modified above. No costs.”

¶127

(Emphasis supplied)

¶128

21. The Supreme Court, in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust

¶129

(Regd.) Faridkot & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Others

¶130

reported in AIR 2012 SC 2721, held as follows:

¶131

“14) This Court in Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa and Another, (2010) 13 SCC 710, after relying upon the earlier decisions of this Court in M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur (supra) and Hansraj (supra) held in para 20 as under:

¶132

“20. The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered.”

¶133

Again, in para 23, it was held that “the averaging of the prices under the two sale deeds was not justified.”

¶134

15) It is clear that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it

¶135

L.A.A. Nos.76 & 78 of 2017

¶136

Page 19 of 25

¶137

is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied, that it is a bona fide transaction has to be considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. In our view, it seems to be only fair that where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, the transaction representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. It is not desirable to take an average of various sale deeds placed before the authority/court for fixing fair compensation.

¶138

16) Based on the above principles, the market value as per Ext.A-61 dated 22.07.1977 was Rs. 1,39,130.43 per acre (approx. Rs.1.40 lakhs per acre). The said sale deed was two and a half years prior in time than Section 4(1) notification dated 22.12.1979. There is no reason to eschew the above sale transaction. It is also pointed out that the lands covered under Ext.A-61 are nearer to the lands of the appellants under acquisition. This Court has time and again granted 10% to 15% increase per annum. In Ranjit Singh vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh (1992) 3 SCC 659, this Court applied the rule of 10% yearly increase for award of higher compensation. In Delhi Development Authority vs. Bali Ram Sharma & Ors. (2004) 6 SCC 533, this Court considered a batch of appeals and applied the rule of annual increase for grant of higher compensation. In ONGC Ltd. vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (2008) 14 SCC 745, this Court held that where the acquired land is in urban/semi-urban areas, increase can be to the tune of 10% to 15% per annum

¶139

L.A.A. Nos.76 & 78 of 2017

¶140

Page 20 of 25

¶141

and if the acquired land is situated in rural areas, increase can be between 5% to 7.5% per annum. In Union of India vs. Harpat Singh & Ors. (2009) 14 SCC 375, this Court applied the rule of 10% increase per annum. Based on the above principle, we fix the annual increase at 12% per annum and with that rate of increase, the market value of the appellants’ land would come to Rs.1,82,000 per acre as on the date of notification.”

¶142

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶143

22. As is revealed from the impugned judgment dated 10.07.2017 passed in L.A. Misc. Case No.90 of 2007, the referral Court, while passing the impugned judgment, failed to take note of the contents of the Exhibit-2 i.e. information provided under the R.T.I. Act so also the sketch map, on the plea that no witness like any Amin was examined by the Petitioner to explain the contents of Exhibit-2 and it is difficult to identify as to whether the acquired lands are road side lands or not, even though the information sheet, which has been extracted above, read with the sketch map, which were marked as Exhibit-2, give a clear picture as to the locational advantage of the said plots acquired by the State and the said plots to be road side lands.

¶144

23. Exhibit-1, vide which consideration amount of Rs.15,000/- per decimal was paid for purchasing Taila –II

¶145

L.A.A. Nos.76 & 78 of 2017

¶146

Page 21 of 25

¶147

Kissam of land, is of the year 2000. But the Court below, taking note of Exhibit-A, observed that there is no sale transaction of Taila-II Kissam land in the case mouza during the year 2002, 2003 and 2004 i.e. up to the date of Notification and relying on the decision of this Court in Trilochan Sahu (supra), applying the principle of guess estimate, enhanced the compensation to Rs.1500/- per decimal only, though the RSD marked as Exhibit-1 well demonstrates that the market value of the said Kissam of land was Rs.15,000/- per decimal in the year 2000. Hence, this Court is of the view that the findings of the Court below to the effect that from the evidence of P.Ws it not fully established that the acquired land is cultivable land and nearer to a public road are perverse.

¶148

24. This Court is of further view that the locational advantage of the suit lands are better than the locational advantage of the suit land in L.A.A. No.89 of 2017, vide which this Court upheld the enhanced compensation awarded by the referral Court in favour of the Petitioners/Respondents pertaining to Plot No.38 under the same mouza @ Rs.9,000/per decimal. Admittedly, the said plot is at a greater distance

¶149

L.A.A. Nos.76 & 78 of 2017

¶150

Page 22 of 25

¶151

than all the suit plots pertaining to the present Appeal and having no adjoining road to the said plot. Still, the referral Court enhanced the compensation @ Rs.9,000/- per decimal in the said case. Hence, this Court is of the view that in case of the present Respondents, the awarded compensation should have been more, because of the reasons detailed above.

¶152

25. As the RSD marked as Ext.1 pertains to a small patch of land of only Ac.0.01 decimal and is of the year 2000, for which an amount of Rs.15,000/- was paid towards consideration amount, applying the principle of guess estimate, this Court is of the view a compensation of Rs.12,000/- per decimal would be just and proper, instead of Rs.15,000/per decimal, as claimed by the Respondents/Cross-appellant in L.A.A. No.78 of 2017, based on Ext.1. So far as further increase of compensation @ 10% for the interregnum period, as no such ground has been urged in L.A.A. No.78 of 2017 and also no prayer has been made to the said effect, this Court is not inclined to allow such oral submission and prayer made by the learned Counsel for the private Respondents/Appellants in L.A.A.

¶153

L.A.A. Nos.76 & 78 of 2017

¶154

Page 23 of 25

¶155

No.78 of 2017 to further increase the compensation, applying the rule of annual increase for grant of compensation, as held in Ram Sharma (supra) and Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (supra).

¶156

26. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 10.07.2017 passed in L.A. Misc. Case No.90 of 2017 is modified to the extent that the present Respondents, who are the Appellants in L.A.A. No.78 of 2017, are entitled to get compensation @ Rs.12,000/- per decimal for the land along with interest, solatium and other statutory benefits and the Appellant in L.A.A. No.76 of 2017 so also the proforma Respondent Nos.2 & 3 in the said Appeal are jointly and severally liable to pay the enhanced differential compensation to the Respondents/Cross Appellants. The Appellant and proforma Respondent Nos.2 & 3 in L.A.A. No.76 of 2017 are directed to pay the enhanced differential compensation amount with all other statutory dues in terms of the Act, 1894 within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment.

¶157

27. Accordingly, L.A.A No.76 of 2017 preferred by the Union of India stands dismissed, whereas, L.A.A. No.78 of

¶158

L.A.A. Nos.76 & 78 of 2017

¶159

Page 24 of 25

¶160

2017, preferred by the present Respondents/Cross Appellants, stands partly allowed and disposed of.

¶161

…….….…………………

¶162

S.K. MISHRA, J.