STATE OF ORISSA Vs. KULAMANI NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In accordance with the provision in Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the 'Act') the Land Acquisition Officer, Rengali and Bhimkund Irrigation Project has preferred this appeal challenging the award dated 16/4/1985 in L. A. Misc Case No 378 of 1984 of the court of Subordinate Judge, Deogarh After receipt of the notice from this Court though the claimants/respondents entered appearance but they did not file cross objection challenging any of the findings in the impugned award and at the time of hearing they have been set ex parte

(2.) The fact in substance is that Ac 3 90 decimals of land belonging to the respondents submerged in the Rengah Dam Project and in that respect Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was made on 6/3/1980 followed by declaration No 15110 dated 3/3/1983 published in the Orissa Gazette No 263 dated 4/3/1983 The appellant determined the compensation for the land with solatium at Rs 18,014 20 paise Respondents received the same on protest and claimed higher compensation not only for the landed properties but also for the submerged trees and also claimed cost of rehabilitation It is noted in their objection by the respondents that they claimed compensation at the rate of Rs 16,000/ per acre Dunng the course of inquiry two witnesses were examined by the respondents which included respondent No. 1 as P. W. 1 and a co-villager as P. W. 2 No evidence was adduced by the appellant Learned Subordinate Judge on perusal of the valuation statement, a cyclostyled copy of which was available on record found the manner in which value per acre was determined by the appellant So without assessing the unchallenged evidence of P Ws 1 and 2, learned Subordinate Judge accepted the valuation statement and determined the compensation by adopting 20 years multiplier instead of 16 years which was adopted by the appellant Learned Subordinate Judge, however, declined to award any compensation for alleged submerged trees in the absence of any assessment in that respect by the appellant and also declined to award compensation i.e. the cost of rehabili tation because of lack of evidence in that respect The impugned award was passed accordingly

(3.) During the course of hearing, learned Additional Standing Counsel argues that now it is the settled position of law for computation by adopting 16 years multiplier on the net annual yield and not 20 years multiplier In that respect, he refers to the case of The Executive Director v Sarat Chandra Bisor and an other Accordingly, he argues that the deter mination of the valuation by the appellant should have been upheld by learned Subordinate Judge without enhancing the amount of compensation by adopting 20 years multiplier No other argument is advanced in challenging the impugned award In that case the Apex Court have upheld the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Land Acquisition Zone Officer v DamburudharPradhan and held that in a case of determining the capitalised value, the method of adopting 16 years multiplier on the net annual income of the agricultural land in Onssa is a reasonable view On a reference to AIR 1991 Orissa 271, it is seen that various reported decisions of the Apex Court and this Court were referred to including the cases of State of Orissa v Bibhuti Bhusan Singh, and the State of West Bengal v Shyampad, which two decisions were relied upon by learned Subordinate Judge to adopt 20 multiplier The Division Bench took note of the different multiplier adopted in all the referred cases and after analysis of the principle relating to adopting number of multiplier determined it at 16 times of the net annual yield It is seen from the above noted citation that while determining the valuation by adopting the multiplier of the net annual income, it is not necessary to adopt any number of multiplier, be it 16 or 20 or any other number unless the Court assigns specific reason for adopting such number for multification It may be noted that such an exercise when neces sary is to determine value of the land on the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act