KASINATH MUKHERJI Vs. COLLECTOR OF PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from the judgment of the Additional District Judge of Puri rejecting a reference made by the appellant-claimant, under Section 18 of the land Acquisition Act against the award of the Collector of Puri. . 252 acres of homestead lands of the appellant appertaining to plot Nos. 1712, 1713 and 1714 in the town of Bhubaneswar close to the famous temple of Lord Lingaraj were acquired by the Collector for the improvement of another Temple known as chitrakarani Temple which lies adjacent to the acquired plots. The said Temple is under the management of the Archeological Department of the government of India. The acquisition was made in two instalments. The first one was on 10th November 1947 when 126 acres were acquired and the second one was on the 14th September 1949, when the remaining 126 acres were acquired. The claimant had used the plots for the purpose of storing sugar-cane presses which he used to let out on hire to cultivators. There was a stone wall on one side with wooden planks on three sides. The Collector, in giving his award estimated the compensation at Rs. 7000/- per acre for homestead and Rs. 900/- for the structures standing on the plots including the stones. He also awarded the additional statutory compensation at 15 per cent and thus fixed the amount awarded at Rs. 3063-10-6. The appellant claimed compensation at Rs. 31,000/-at the rate of Rs. 1/- lakh per acre and also additional compensation for some other items such as loss of business etc.

(2.) DURING the hearing of the appeal two main contentions were raised on behalf of the appellant by Mr. S. K. Ray. Firstly he urged that the potential value of the plots arising out of their proximity to the Chitrakarani Temple should have been estimated separately and added to the compensation amount. Secondly he urged that, in any case, the estimate of Rs. 7000/- Per acre fixed by the Collector was arbitrary and was not supported by the materials collected by the Land Acquisition officer.

(3.) WHERE the award of the Collector is challenged the burden undoubtedly lies primarily on the claimant to show that the Collector's estimate was wrong. The appellant has not been able to give satisfactory evidence about the value of house sites close to the acquired sites during the years in question. He relied on a sale deed of 1951 which was rightly rejected. It is notorious that the value of house sites in Bhubaneswar was steadily increasing year by year after the War especially after the commencement of construction of the New Capital and the value of such, sites in 1951 will therefore give no indication of their value in 1947 or 1949. The appellant also relied on another sale deed dated 24th April 1949 but from the map it appears that the plot covered by the sale deed was situated on the main road and had exceptional advantages which were not present in the case of the plots in question. Hence that sale deed also cannot be taken as a basis for estimating the value of the plots acquired in 1949.