STATE OF ORISSA Vs. BIBHUTI BHUSAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR extension of the Cuttack-Kujang Road near Gopalpur, a notification was issued by Government on 26-4-1963 for acquiring 0. 08 decimals of homestead land out of plot No. 608 appertaining to khata No. 222 of village Gopalpur, belonging to the respondents. On the said plot of land stood a house The Land acquisition Officer fixed Rupees 400/- as value of the homestead land at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per acre and the value of the house at Rs. 15,306/ -. To this amount of Rs. 15,706/- was added the statutory compensation calculated at 15 per cent. payable under Section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act ). A sum of Rs. 18,827. 20 p. in all was offered to the respondents which the latter accepted under protest, and on their request a reference was made by the Collector under Section 18 of the Act. The Subordinate Judge, Cuttack after necessary enquiry fixed the valuation of the land at Rs. 460/and of the house at Rs. 30,000/- and together with the statutory compensation of fifteen per cent. payable thereon held that a total of Rs. 35,020-00 is payable to the respondents. Deducting the amount of Rupees 18,827-20 p. already received by them, he directed payment of the balance of Rs. 16,201-80 p. together with interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum thereon from the date of taking over possession till payment. Being aggrieved by this decision, the State of Orissa has filed this appeal.

(2.) THE learned Subordinate Judge held that the market value of the land would be rs. 400/- and to this amount he added fifteen per cent. thereof towards the potential value and thus arrived at the figure of Rs. 460/ -. Similarly, in res-pect of the house, he fixed the market value thereof together with its potential value at rs. 30,000/ -. The correctness of the value of the house as fixed by the learned subordinate Judge is now challenged before us on behalf of the State.

(3.) IN determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under the Act, the Court is to take into consideration the market value of the land at the date of publication of the notification under Section 4, Sub-section (1 ). The method of valuation of the land so acquired may be classified under three heads:- (1) The opinion of the valuers or experts (2) The price paid within a reasonable time of the material date in bona fide transactions of purchase of lands in the neighbourhood and possessing similar advantages; and (3) By capitalising the net annual income from the land. Admittedly, in this case, there is no evidence of any sale transactions of similar buildings in the locality. There is the estimation by an engineer (Ext. A) and his evidence as O. P. W. 1. There is also evidence about the annual net income from the house as can be gathered from the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3. Over and above that, there is evidence regarding the amount alleged to have been spent on construction of the disputed house as given by P. Ws. 4 and 5 and the evidence of p. W 1 who himself has constructed a house in the locality. P. W. 4 who serves under the respondents stated that he was in charge of construction of the acquired house and that a sum of Rs. 54,600/- was spent for its construction. In support of this, he has filed the account Ext. 2. P. W. 5, one of the respondents, stated that he verified the account Ext. 2 and found it to be correct. This account had never been produced before the Land Acquisition Officer before whom the respondents in their claim application Ext. B stated that the disputed building would cost Rs. 40,000/ -. That apart, the account Ext. 2 shows that the expenditure on the building had been incurred from 16-5-1963 and the account was closed on 26-12 1963. But the respondents themselves have let in evidence that in the year 1961, the Panchayat Samiti had passed resolution for taking this building on rent. In these circumstances, the learned Subordinate Judge was justified in holding that ext. 2 had been manufactured for the purpose of this case and that it is not a true account of the construction of the Building. On this ground he rejected the evidence of P. Ws. 4 and 5. Similarly, the evidence of P. W. 1 that near about the disputed locality, he had constructed a one-roomed house at a cost of Rs. 15,000/- has not been corroborated either by oral or documentary evidence and consequently its rejection by the learned Judge also appears to be justified.