STATE OF ORISSA Vs. BAJI BEHARI GURU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 7(3) of the Orissa Development of Industries, Irrigation, Agriculture, Capital Construction and Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948 (Act 18 of 1948)(hereinafter referred to as the Act) against an awasd dated 8 -9 -1964 of the Arbitrator, Hirakud Land Organisation, Sambalpur. 7.06 acres of Sir lands of mouza. Gurupali were acquired by the State in 1955. The competent authority had offered Rs. 3906.19 p. as compensation for the lands and Rs. 49.25 p. for the trees standing thereon including 15% additional compensation in respect of the trees. The Respondent did not accept the compensation and on objections raised by him, the matter was referred to the Arbitrator. The objection relating to the valuation fixed for the trees was Dot passed before the Arbitrator and the dispute before him was confined to the sole question regarding proper compensation payable for the Sir lands acquired. The Respondent contended that in the District of Sambalpur, there was no difference between Sir lands and Bhogra lands and that accordingly the compensation should be calculated by capitalising twenty year 's net profits of the disputed lands as is done in the case of Bhogra lands on the basis that Sir lands are freely transferable. The learned Arbitrator did not accept this contention. It was next contended on behalf of the Respondent that even assuming that this case falls under the second proviso to Section 7(1)(e) of Act 18 of 1948 still in view of the fact that the State Legislature had not made any rules regarding the mode of calculation of the reduced rental value of such land, the second proviso would, not be applicable with the result that Respondent should be entitled to the market value of the acquired lands. This contention found favour with the learned Arbitrator who fixed the compensation for the acquired lands at 16 times its annual yield, leaving the work of calculation of the net yield to be done by the Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of crop cutting experiments recorded in the Hamid Settlement Report. He also allowed 15% additional compensation and 6% interest on the total compensation amount from the date of dispossession till the date of actual payment, with a further direction that the advance compensation, if any, already paid to the objector, and composition amount, if any, already deposited as revenue deposit in favour of the objector, should be excluded while calculating the interest as allowed above. Being aggrieved by this decision, the State of Orissa has referred this appeal.

(2.) TO appreciate the contentions raised in this case, it is necessary to refer to Section 7(1) of the Act which prescribes the method of determining compensation. Section 7(1) 80 far as is material runs thus:

(3.) AS this is a case of compulsory acquisition, the Arbitrator is also justified in awasding 15% extra compensation as is done in cases of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. So far as interest is concerned, Rule 23 of the Rules framed under the Act authorities the competent authority at the time of payment of compensation to the person or persons entitled thereto to pay to them six per centum per annum on the said amount for the entire period between the date of talking possession of the land and the date notified for making payment. Hence no exception can be taken to this part of direction made by the learned Arbitrator.