Suresh Vs L.A.O.

3. Present Appellant was the claimant before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sundargarh whose land measuring area Ac.0.52 decimals in Plot No.3100 under Khata No.310 of mouza-Kutra in the district of Sundargarh was acquired by the State in the year 1991 for expansion of State Highway No.10 from Rourkela to Sambalpur. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was published on 24.08.1991 for acquisition of land situated along side of the Highway. The land of the Appellant is an agricultural land in the nature of GodaII. The total compensation of Rs.19,500/- was paid to the Appellant in lieu of acquisition of his land measuring area Ac.0.52 decimals.

¶25

4 . Being aggrieved with the same, the Appellant preferred an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 claiming enhanced compensation. According to the Appellant, his land acquired by the State should fetch more compensation on the ground that a nearby land of same mouza was sold as per the sale deed dated 20.11.1991 under Ext.1 for Rs.30,000/- per Ac.0.09 decimals. The claimant accordingly prays for assessment of compensation in respect of his acquired land on the basis of such amount recorded in the sale transaction made vide Ext.1.

¶26

F.A. No.31 of 1996

¶27

Page 2 of 8

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 07-Nov-2025 10:55:17

¶30

5. The land in question of the Appellant is undoubtedly of nature Goda-II, which means it is an inferior quality agricultural land, and situating 14 kms away from the nearby town on the road side as per the sale statistics furnished by Sub-Registrar in accordance with the Notification/Declaration No.47166 dated 21.8.1992. The valuation of Goda-II land of mouza-Kutra was made at Rs.25,000/- per acre in terms of the calculation furnished under Ext.B.

¶31

6. The claimant examined himself as P.W.1 to substantiate his claim on the basis of the sale deed under Ext.1 of mouza-Kutra for enhancing the compensation amount by making valuation at Rs.5000/per decimal, meaning thereby Rs.50,000/- per acre. It is stated by P.W.1 in his evidence that the market value of his land was more than Rs.3000/- per decimal and vide Ext.1, the certified copy of the registered Sale Deed No.406 dated 20.11.1991, Ac.0.09 decimals of Goda-II variety of land in mouza-Kutra were sold at Rs.30,000/-. It is admitted by the claimant in his cross-examination that he had no knowledge about losing of any land by the vendor of Ext.1 nor he had

¶32

any knowledge that whether such land of the vendor in Ext.1 had received more compensation by virtue of any land acquisition process.

¶33

F.A. No.31 of 1996

¶34

Page 3 of 8

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 07-Nov-2025 10:55:17

¶37

7. P.W.2 is the vendor of Ext.1 and he has admitted in his crossexamination that in several land acquisition cases he has witnessed and he has no idea about other transaction in that area except the land sold by him under Ext.1. It is also admitted by him that his land sold under Ext.1 is 1½ km away from the present case land.

¶38

8. Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 enumerates various factors to be considered in determining the compensation amount for land acquisition purpose. In addition to the market value of the land prescribed as per Section 23 of the Act, other facts including damages if any caused to the land owner by partial acquisition of his land would also be a considerable factor. It is well settled that the registered sale deed in respect of the land under same mouza to nearby area of the acquired land would be a great help for determining the actual market value of the land acquired for the purpose of determining the compensation amount.

¶39

9. In Krishan Kumar vs. Union of India & Anr., (2015) 15 SCC 220, it has been observed that;

¶40

“23. We would like to point out at this stage the argument of Mr Shishodia, learned Senior Counsel who appeared in some

¶41

F.A. No.31 of 1996

¶42

Page 4 of 8

¶43

Signature Not Verified

¶44

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 07-Nov-2025 10:55:17

¶45

of these appeals, to the effect that in the absence of any evidence of exemplar depicting sale value, the court is required to do guesswork. In support of this proposition, he placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court in Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal [ Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal , (2011) 6 SCC 47 : (2011) 3 SCC (Civ) 178] as well as K.S. Shivadevamma v. Commr. and LAO [ K.S. Shivadevamma v. Commr. and LAO , (1996) 2 SCC 62] . In the present case, as the only sale deed on which reliance was placed (Ext. PW 1/2) stands rejected, there is no other exemplar in the form of sale deed. The learned counsel wants us to “guesstimate” the market value. In Trishala Jain [ Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal , (2011) 6 SCC 47 : (2011) 3 SCC (Civ) 178] , the Court laid down the circumstances when application of “guesstimate” principle is to be applied. This can be found in para 65 of the said judgment which reads as under: (SCC p. 68)

¶46

“ 65 . It will be appropriate for us to state certain principles controlling the application of ‘guesstimate’:

¶47

( a ) Wherever the evidence produced by the parties is not sufficient to determine the compensation with exactitude, this principle can be resorted to.

¶48

( b ) Discretion of the court in applying guesswork to the facts of a given case is not unfettered but has to be reasonable and should have a connection to the data on record produced by the parties by way of evidence. Further, this entire exercise has to be within the limitations specified under Sections 23 and 24 of the Act and cannot be made in detriment thereto.”

¶49

24. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, and having peculiarity of the present appeals where there is total absence of exemplars, we are of the opinion that some increase, but only

¶50

F.A. No.31 of 1996

¶51

Page 5 of 8

¶52

Signature Not Verified

¶53

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 07-Nov-2025 10:55:17

¶54

marginal one, can be ordered over and above the circular rates fixed by the government orders. In Land Acquisition Officer v. Karigowda [ Land Acquisition Officer v. Karigowda , (2010) 5 SCC 708 : (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 531] , following pertinent observations were made by this Court: (SCC p. 740)

¶55

“ 90 . … The Court is entitled to apply some [amount] of reasonable guesswork to balance the equities and fix a just and fair market value in terms of the parameters specified under Section 23 of the Act.”

¶56

25. This Court can indulge in the some reasonable guesswork to balance the equity for fixing just and fair market value. In the absence of any other exemplar in the form of sale deed, though it is difficult to say as to what extent the actual market value was higher in contradistinction to the value of land fixed by the Government in the aforesaid notifications, we are of the opinion that as a thumb rule an increase of Rs 1,00,000 per acre be granted, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case”.

¶57

10. In the case at hand, it is admitted that the sale under Ext.1 is dated 20.11.1991 whereas the Notification made under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is dated 24.8.1991. It is admitted by P.W.2 that he had knowledge of Notification made under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act at the time of sale of his land. The sale deed executed in the same mouza nearby the acquired land though is a matter of importance to be taken into consideration for determining the market value of the acquired land, but if the said sale deed was executed after

¶58

Section 4(1) Notification was issued and if the knowledge of the

¶59

F.A. No.31 of 1996

¶60

Page 6 of 8

¶61

Signature Not Verified

¶62

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 07-Nov-2025 10:55:17

¶63

process of acquisition to be held in near future was there, then the importance of consideration of such valuation made in the sale deed lost

¶64

its relevance of the purpose. It is for the reason that after coming to know the process of acquisition of land in near future, the rate and market value of the land is usually increased to fetch more compensation. Thus, in the instant case, Ext.1 being dated 20.11.1991, i.e. after four months of the Notification made under Section 4(1) of the

¶65

Land Acquisition Act, the same cannot be taken into consideration as the basis for determining market value of the acquired land at such enhanced rate than the sale statistics referred by the authority.

¶66

11. As stated earlier, Ext.B – the sale statistics, prescribes the valuation of Goda-II nature of land at Rs.25,000/- per acre and the compensation amount paid to the Appellant was determined accordingly. Without specific materials brought on record regarding the prospects of the land acquired by the Government and the specific loss caused to the Appellant by such acquisition from Plot No.3100, and moreover keeping in view the nature of land along with it’s location, no merit is seen in the claim of the Appellant for enhancing the compensation amount as paid to him by the authority.

¶67

F.A. No.31 of 1996

¶68

Page 7 of 8

¶69

Signature Not Verified

¶70

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 07-Nov-2025 10:55:17

¶71

12. In the result, no infirmity is seen in the impugned order dated 14^th September 1995 of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sundargarh passed in L.A. Misc. Case No.100 of 1994 and the appeal is dismissed accordingly.

¶72

(B.P. Routray) Judge

¶73

B.K. Barik/Secretary

¶74

F.A. No.31 of 1996

¶75

Page 8 of 8

Suresh v. L.A.O.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh v. L.A.O.

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

Umesh Chandra Pattnaik@Pattanaik Vs Ambika Prasad Mohanty

Jamini Patel Vs Hemant Kumar Bhati

Bidyut Lata Bardhan Vs Sanjukta Bardhan@Ray

Mukul Kumar Vs Laxmidhar Samantaray

Arun Prasad Sahu Vs Bharat Mistry

Santilata Mohanty Vs State of Odisha