LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER CIVIL CUTTACK Vs. BACHHA SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal has assailed the propriety of the award passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kendrapara, in L.A. Case No. 112 of 1986 in a reference under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the "Act").

(2.) Land appertaining to Khata No. 88, Plot No. 261 measuring Ac. 0.12 decimals and Khata No. 90, Plot No. 262 measuring Ac. 0. 68 decimals, in total Ac. 0.80 decimals in mouza Sribantapur in Kendrapara P.S. belonging to the respondent was acquired by the State Government for construction of Drainage Channel from Dhumatapat to Gobari river and possession was taken on 29.11.1978. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation of Rs. 1536.40 paise for the acquired land. The claimant being dissatisfied filed objection on 18.4.1979 before the Collector claiming higher compensation at the rate of Rs 10.000/- per acre although he received the compensation amount under protest on 24.3 1979 The Collector referred the matter under Section 18 of the Act on 4.6.1986 for determination of just compensation by the Civil Court. In the reference which was registered as L.A. Misc. Case No. 112 of 1986 the claimant examined three witnesses including himself and relied upon certified copies of two sale deeds. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kendrapara, considering the evidence on record assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs 12.500/- per acre and accordingly fixed the compensation at Rs. 10.000/- for the acquired land. Besides, the learned Civil Judge granted Solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 15% for 15 years. Being aggrieved by the award parsed by the Civil Judge, the State has preferred this appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the Court below did not consider the matter in proper perspective and was guided by the sale deed (Ext. 1) which was a transaction much after the acquisition and was designedly executed showing inflated amount so that the higher compensation can be claimed. It is also submitted that the land in question cannot be used for any purpose other than agricultural purpose and could not have fetched more than Rs. 5.000/- per acre. The Land Acquisition Collector while determining the compensation had taken into account the sale statistics which showed that the land per acre was being sold at Rs. 1.500/-. However, I find from the records that the appellant has led no evidence before the referal Court. Therefore, I do not find any justification in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant