COLLECTOR Vs. NISAMANI BEWA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING regard to the importance of the question involved in this batch of civil revisions, a learned judge of this Court considered it appropriate that the answer to the controversy should be given by a Division Bench and that is how this batch has come before us.

(2.) FOR construction of Engineering Research institute at Pandara, lands located in Mouza Gadakana in Bhubaneswar were acquired by notification dated 8.4 -1964 and 20 -5 -1964 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The Collector determined the compensation fixing the market value of the land at Rs. 10,000/ - per acre. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Subordinate Judge determined the compensation taking into consideration the market value of the land at Rs. 40,000/ - per acre. Appeal was carried to this Court by the State and this Court set aside the awards passed by the learned Subordinate Judge and remanded the matters for fresh disposal in accordance with, the observations made On 23 -7 -1980 upon remand the learned Subordinate Judge held that compensation would be payable with reference to the market value of one category of land at Rs. 50,000/ - per acre and of the second category at the rate of Rs. 43,000/ - per acre The State moved this Court again in appeal being aggrieved by the determination as made by the learned Subordinate Judge by his awards dated 23 -7 -1980. This Court, which heard the various first appeals analogously by judgment dated 25 -2 -1982 modified the determination of the learned Subordinate Judge and substituted the market value as Rs. 43,000/ - and Rs. 40,000/ - in place of Rs. 50,000/ - and Rs. 43,000/ - as determined by the learned Subordinate Judge for the two categories of land. This Court further directed that the claimants would be entitled to the statutory solatium at 15% and interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of dispossession till payment. In as much as, however, it was brought to its notice that various amounts had been paid to the claimants in the cases, It directed the learned Subordinate Judge to draw up decrees deducting the amounts already paid.

(3.) IT is worthwhile to note here that First Appeal No. 310 of 1980 which gave rise to Hadu Das's case (supra) was one of the appeals heard and disposed of analogously with the first appeals off shoots of which are the present revisions.