STATE OF ORISSA Vs. BRU LAL MISRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals are disposed of by a common judgment since the questions of law raised are common.

(2.) A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, Rs. the Act') was published in 1968 acquiring 0.62 acre, 0.82 acre and 0.15 acre in Survey No.704, 705 and 706/80 respectively for construction of over-bridge, near Vedavyas in Rajganjpur - Rourkela Road. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation under Section 11 of the Act between Rs.1,360/- per acre to Rs.2912/- per acre. On reference, the Subordinate Judge, by award and decree dated January 19, 1970, while determining the compensation at the rate of Rs.200/- per decimal, on the basis of comparable sales which ranged between Rs.100/- to Rs.115/- per decimal, further enhanced 25% of the compensation for future potential value which was upheld by the High Court by its impugned judgment dated August 16, 1978. The only question, rightly canvassed by Shri Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant is whether the Courts having determined the compensation take the potential value. Whether would be right to further enhance compensation at 25% more for future potentiality. The High Court placed reliance on two judgments of that Court reported in Musmat Kunduna Bibi alias Khatun Bibi v. State of Orissa, (1968) 34 Cut LT 1043 and in State of Orissa through the Land Acquisition Collector, Sundergarh v. Budha Oram etc. (1977) 2 Cut WR 631, and held thus:

(3.) Section 23(1) of the Act charges determination of the amount of compensation for the acquired land taking into account firstly the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The question, therefore, would be that what would be the market value of the land. The Market value prevailing on the date of the notification including potentiality the land possessed of or realisable potentiality existing as on the date of the notification, would be the relevant facts for consideration to determine market value. This question was settled by the Privy Council in V.N. Gajapatiraju v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Vishakhapatnam, (supra). The Privy Council held that in determining market value under Section 23, the Court would be guided by ascertaining in a best way from the material on record from willing vendors. It is possibility of the market value of the land and not realised possibility that must be taken into consideration. That judgment is followed in a catena of decisions of this Court and held that in determining the compensation the Court would take into consideration the potentialities of the land existing as on the date of the notification published under Section 4(1). The very concept of the potential value would mean existing in possibility but not in act, i.e., the land is capable to be used in future in the existing condition. Having taken that factor into consideration and determined compensation whether the Court would be justified in further enhancing at 25% for further potentiality Our answer is positively no. Section 24, fifthly, of the Act expressly prohibits taking into account such future use declaring such matters to be neglected in determining compensation. The Court shall not take into consideration and increase to the value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired; sixthly, any increase to the value of the other land of the person interested likely to accrue from the use to which the land acquired will be put. In other words, the statute expressly enjoins to omit consideration of the future use of the land or potentialities of the neighbouring lands on account of the acquisition in determining compensation. In a recent judgment in P. Rama Reddy v.Land Acquisition Officer, (1995) 2 SCC 305 at 314, this Court considering this aspect of the matter held thus: