Union of India Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer,Khurda Road

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

L.A.A No.16 of 2016

Union of India ....... Appellant -VersusSpecial Land Acqusition Officer, Khurda Road-Bolangir Rail Link Project, Nayagarh and others ....... Respondents

¶4

Advocate for the parties For Petitioner : Mr. Alok Kumar Mohanty, Sr. Panel Counsel For Respondent Nos.1 and 2 : Mrs. Usharani Padhi, Addl. Standing Counsel For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Jitendra Samantaray, Advocate

¶5

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

¶6

¶7

Date of Hearing & Judgment: 08.09.2025

¶8

S.K. Mishra, J .

¶9

1. Though this Appeal has been listed under the heading “Fresh Admission”, learned Counsel for the Appellant-Union of India submits, there is no need of calling for the L.C.R and the matter can be heard and disposed of based on the materials on record. Hence, the Appeal is taken up for hearing and final disposal at the stage of admission on consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶10

2. Impugned is the judgment dated 30.09.2015 passed in L.A. Misc. Case No.08 of 2010 by the learned Court below, vide which the referral Court, relying on the documentary evidence on record so also guess-estimate, came to a conclusion that the private Respondent, who is the Petitioner before the Court below, is entitled to compensation @ Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lakh) per acre, apart from other statutory dues, as has been detailed in the ordering portion of the impugned judgment.

¶11

3. The factual backdrop discloses the dispute relating to enhancement of compensation for acquisition of

¶12

L.A.A. No.16 of 2016

¶13

Page 2 of 11

¶14

land appertaining to Khata No.772/8, Plot No.439 measuring Ac.0.95 decimals out of Ac.1.00 decimal, classified as Sarada Ana Jala Sechita-2 , situated in MouzaNarendrapur . Pursuant to Notification No.3008, dated 20.01.2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, shortly, hereinafter ‘the L.A. Act’, the said land was acquired by the Government of Odisha for the public purpose of construction of the Khurda Road– Bolangir Rail–Link Project.

¶15

3.1 The judgment dated 30.09.2015 reveals that the lis land was acquired by the Govt. in L.A. Case No. 41 of 2006 for the said project. The Claimant was awarded Rs.72,200/- towards land value and Rs.36,377/-towards other statutory benefits, i.e., a sum of Rs. 1,08,577/- in aggregate. The notice U/s.12(2) of the L.A. Act vide Gazette Notification No.565, dtd.03.03.2008, required the Petitioner-Respondent to appear before the Land Acquisition Collector on 29.09.2009 to receive the awarded amount, which he received under protest. A written objection was filed by him before the Collector on 31.10.2009, as the compensation awarded, being grossly

¶16

L.A.A. No.16 of 2016

¶17

Page 3 of 11

¶18

inadequate and not reflective of the prevailing market value of similarly situated lands in the vicinity. The said objection was forwarded to the Court below on 18.01.2010, which was registered as L.A. Misc. Case No.08 of 2010 and the present Appellant and Respondent Nos.1 and 2 contested the said Misc. Case.

¶19

3.2 The learned Reference Court categorically addressed the issue of limitation. Since the objection was filed on 31.10.2009, i.e., within six weeks of the statutory limitation period contemplated under proviso to Section 18(2)(a) of the L.A. Act, the application was held not to be barred by limitation.

¶20

3.3 In determining the fair market value under Section 23(1) of the L.A. Act, the learned Reference Court took into consideration the nature, classification and location of the acquired land as well as sale instances of comparable lands in the locality relying upon two registered sale deeds, i.e., RSD No.877, dated 13.07.2004 and RSD No.1261 dated 29.11.2004, which were accepted as reliable exemplars for determining the prevailing market rate. Both sale deeds pertain to similarly situated lands in the same

¶21

L.A.A. No.16 of 2016

¶22

Page 4 of 11

¶23

village and bore proximity in time to the issuance of Section 4(1) notification.

¶24

3.4 The records further reveal that the Govt. acquired Ac.0.95 decimals, thereby causing the residual Ac. 0.05 decimals to lose its potential value. This aspect was found relevant U/s.23(1) of the L.A. Act while determining compensation. On such basis, the learned Court below assessed the fair market value of the land to be Rs.2000/(rupees two thousand) per decimal at the time of publication of notice for acquisition U/s.4(1) of L.A Act taking note of the observations made by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Krishna Prasad Ratha, reported in 1973, C.L.T-1068, so also in Special Land Acquisition Officer, Avangera Vrs. P. Veerabhabarappa , reported in AIR 1984 SC 774 .

¶25

4. The Appellant assails the impugned judgment mainly on the grounds that the objection was barred by limitation, there is no finding regarding the date of award, the documents exhibited were ignored, benchmark valuation of different plots were taken into consideration and that the sale deeds relied upon were not proved

¶26

L.A.A. No.16 of 2016

¶27

Page 5 of 11

¶28

through the Vendors or Vendees. It has further been contended that the acquired land, being a larger tract, should not have been compared with smaller plots in exemplar sale deeds and that the Collector’s statement U/s. 19 of the L.A. Act was not before the Referral Court.

¶29

5. Mr. Mohanty, learned Sr. Panel Counsel for the Appellant-Union of India, drawing attention of this Court to the impugned judgment, submitted that the learned Court below has misconstrued the provision of Section 18(2)(a) in respect of period of limitation for filing of objection by the person interested, who does not accept the award of the Collector under Section 12 of the L.A. Act in respect of the amount of compensation. Further, there is no finding with regard to date of award as required under Section 12 and alleged non-compliance of Section 19 of the L.A. Act.

¶30

5.1 That apart, Vendor and Vendee of the sale deeds, which were the basis to enhance the compensation, were never examined to prove the said sale deeds. The Court below failed to take note of the size of the suit land of the sale deeds exhibited before it vis-à-vis the size of the acquired land of the Respondent.

¶31

L.A.A. No.16 of 2016

¶32

Page 6 of 11

¶33

6. Per Contra, Mr. Samantaray, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3, drawing attention of this Court to the findings of the learned Court below with regard to issue No.2, submitted that the learned Court below has rightly enhanced the compensation based on the materials available on record, including original so also certified copies of the RSDs, which were marked as Exhibits 1 and 2 without any objection and there is no infirmity in the impugned award.

¶34

7. In view of the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties, it would be apt to reproduce below relevant portion of Paragraph No.8 and Paragraph No.9 in full of the impugned judgment, for ready reference.

¶35

“8. Issue No.(1): XXXX XXXX XXXX However, the Opp. Parties have filed some documents being marked Ext.A to Ext.C and it reveals from Ext.A that notification u/s. 4(i) of L.A. Act for acquisition of land in village-Narendrapur for the Khurda Road-Bolangir New B.G. Rail Link Project was published in the locality on 17.02.2007. It reveals from Form No.18 issued by Collector u/s.3(C) of Land Acquisition Act under Khurda Road-Bolangir New B.G. Rail Link Project that the declaration was made in this regard vide Gazette Notification No.565, dtd. 03.03.2008 and it reveals from the notice issued U/s. 12(2) of L.A.

¶36

L.A.A. No.16 of 2016

¶37

Page 7 of 11

¶38

Manual vide Form-16 that notice was issued to the petitioner to appear before L.A. Collector on 29.09.2009 to receive the award amount. The petitioner has stated that he has not received the said amount and filed objection. As it reveals from the objection that it has been filed on 31.10.2009 which is within six weeks of prescribed limitation period, so this application is not barred by law of limitation . Hence this issue is answered positively in favour of the plaintiff.

¶39

9. Issue No.(2):

¶40

Two principles relating to the matter of fixation of compensation relevant for the purpose, may be kept in mind. When large tracts are acquired, transaction in support of small properties did not offer appropriate guidelines. Therefore, the valuation in transaction in regard to a smaller property should not be taken as a real basis for determining the compensation for large tracts of property. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has indicated in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Avangera Vrs. P. Veerabhabarappa, reported in AIR 1984 S.C. 774, that the function of the Court in awarding compensation under the Act is to ascertain the market value of the land at the date of notification u/s. 4(1) of the Act and methods of valuation may be:-

¶41

1. Opinion of experts.

¶42

2. The price paid within a reasonable time in bonafide transaction of purchase or sale of the lands acquired or of the lands adjacent to those acquired and possessing similar advantages.

¶43

3. The number of years’ purchase of the actual or immediate prospective profits of the lands acquired.

¶44

L.A.A. No.16 of 2016

¶45

Page 8 of 11

¶46

In this instant case, the plaintiff has adduced no opinion of experts. Regarding 2^nd method for consideration of market value, the plaintiff has produced the original registered sale deed No.877 dtd. 13.07.2004 and certified copy of R.S.D. No.1261. dtd. 29.11.2004. It reveals from the above said registered sale deeds that vide R.S.D. No.877, dtd. 13.07.2004 a sale was made for an area Ac.0.70 decs for Plot No.699 under MouzaNarendrapur and the transacted land was Kisam Sarad Anajalasechita-!. The consideration money was Rs.1,40,000/-. It reveals from the certified copy of R.S.D. No.1261, dtd. 29.11.2004 that two plots having area Ac. 0.21 decimals and Ac.0.37 decimals were transacted out of Khata Nos.643 and 259 of Mouza-Narendrapur. The consideration money was Rs.1,16,000/- and the total area sold and purchased was Ac.0.58 decimals after calculation. The cost of the land transacted it comes to Rs.2,000/per decimals in view of the above said sale deeds. Though I have gone through the evidence of the Opp. Parties, but found nothing to discard the evidence of the Petitioner. Hence, the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner is relevant to consider the market value of the acquired land .

¶47

From the evidence of the petitioner, the said land is also comes under Mouza-Narendrapur and from the forwarding referral form it is clear that the suit land is of Kisam- Sarad Anajalasechita-2. So, the exact rate of the cited land is not applicable to the suit land. However, it should be near about the same rate. Moreover, it should also be considered that out of a big patch of

¶48

L.A.A. No.16 of 2016

¶49

Page 9 of 11

¶50

Ac.1.00 decs Government acquired area Ac.0.95 decimals. In this way the rest Ac.0.5 decs lost its potential value which is relevant u/s 23(1) of L.A. Act determining the amount of compensation .

¶51

Regarding the 3^rd method of valuation, the Hon’ble Court observed in various cases that considering the evidence on record it would be just, proper and fair to fix the market value looking at the evidence with regard to its potentiality. In this regard, the petitioner has not adduced any cogent evidence. However, a reasonable guestimation can be done in view of the observation made by Hon’ble Court in a case between State of Orissa V. Krishna Prasad Ratha reported in 1973, C.L.T. 1068. Considering the above said matters, I think that the potential value of the suit land should be considered as Rs.2,000/- per decimal at the time of acquisition of land . As per Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, there is no evidence when the Collector took possession of the land. However, date of award should be treated as the date of taking possession of the case land by the Collector. Hence, ordered.”

¶52

(Emphasis supplied)

¶53

8. After going through the said findings of the learned Court below so also taking note of the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 30.09.2015 passed in L.A. Misc. Case No.08 of 2010.

¶54

9. Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed.

¶55

L.A.A. No.16 of 2016

¶56

Page 10 of 11

¶57

10. In view of dismissal of the Appeal, the AppellantUnion of India is directed to implement the order dated 30.09.2015 passed in L.A. Misc. Case No.08 of 2010 within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment.

¶58

…….…………………… S.K. MISHRA, J.

¶59

Orissa High Court, Cuttack. Dated, the 8^th September, 2025/Kanhu

¶60

Signature Not Verified

¶61

Digitally Signed Signed by: KANHU BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 18-Sep-2025 19:05:51

¶62

L.A.A. No.16 of 2016

¶63

Page 11 of 11

Union of India v. Special Land Acquisition Officer,Khurda Road

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Special 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

Swarnaprava Hati Vs Board of Directors Cum-Reviewing Authority,Odisha

Niraj Nalini Parija Vs Sunam Shankar Pattanaik

Anshuman Patnaik Vs Pratikshiya Swain

Santosh Kumar Parida Vs State of Orissa

Anuradha Biswal Vs Subhadipta Swain

Prafulla Luha Vs Asha Mahanandia