LAWS(ORI)-2000-9-24

LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER CIVIL CUTTACK Vs. BANAMALI PARIDA

Decided On September 21, 2000
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (CIVIL), CUTTACK Appellant
V/S
BANAMALI PARIDA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ac. 1.08 decimals of Sarada Dofasali land apertaining to Plot Nos. 414 and 416 under holding No. 71 in village Chhanda under Patkura police-stattion was acquired by the Government for drainage purpose as per the declaration dated 26.7.1983. The Land Acquisition Officer i.e., the appellant assessed the compensation @Rs. 15,000/ - per acre and along with other statutory entitlements determined the total compensation at Rs. 18,630/-. The claimant-respondent received the same on protest and claimed for higher compensation. Hence reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act;) was made by the appellant to the court of subordinate Judge, Kendrapara which was registered as L.A. Misc. Case No. 19 of 1984.

(2.) During the course of inquiry, respondent examined three witnesses including himself as P.W. 1 and relied upon two registered sale deeds vide Exts. 1 and 2. The appellant examined an Amin as the solitary witness from its side and relied upon the sale statistics Ext. A and the grounds for valuation Ext.B. On assessment of such evidence, learned Subordinate Judge held that there is positive evidence from the side of the respondent regarding existence of much higher market price of agricultural lands of similar category and the rebuttal evidence adduced by the appellant does not disprove the same. Accordingly, the rate of compensation determined by the appellant was not accepted. He further held that on a conspectus of entire circumstance and evidence on record, valuation @ Rs. 30,000/- was found to be more appropriate. Learned Subordinate Judge, however, declined to grant any compensation, as prayed for by the respondent, for loss due to severence. Learned Subordinate Judge passed the award accordingly and also granted other statutory entitlements.

(3.) The aforesaid award is under challenge at the instance of the appellant. Respondents after their appearance did not file any cross- objection challenging any of the findings recorded by learned Subordinate Judge.