ANGADA PUJHARI Vs. KANHEI PUJHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' hereinafter) directed against the award passed by the Subordinate Judge, Bhawanipatna, in M.J.C. No. 143 of 1986, arising out of a reference made under Section 18 of the Act.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated thus ; A total area of Ac. 6.84 of land covered by plot Nos. 1135 and 1136 under Khata No. 33 in village Karanjiguda under Jaipatna PS. in Kalahandi district was compulsorily acquired by the Government of Orissa for construction of 400/200 K.V. Sub station, Indravati, pursuant to a notification issued under Section 4(i) of the Act in that regard. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the compensation at Rs. 39,014.22 in favour of the present appellant Angada Pujhari. But before the amount of compensation could be paid, a dispute over payment of such amount to the appellant having been raised by one Kanhei Pujhari, respondent No. 1, the Land Acquisition Collector referred the matter to the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhawanipatna, under Section 18 of the Act for decision. Respondent No. 1 in his objection claimed that he was entitled to a share in the compensation as the acquired land was also his ancestral property and that the valuation of the land fixed was very low inasmuch as the price per acre of land was Rs. 15,000/ . He further claimed that besides paddy, he was growing vegetables on plot No. 1136 and was making an annual income of Rs. 1,20,000/ . That apart, there were also some fruit bearing trees on plot No. 1135. While determining compensation, the aforesaid matters had not been taken into consideration. The appellant took the stand that the acquired land belonged to his adoptive father late Kamlu Pujhari and being the sole heir of said Kamlu Pujhari, he alone was entitled to receive the entire compensation amount.

(3.) THE petitioner in the Court below, i.e., respondent No. 1, in support of his case examined three witnesses and exhibited three documents. Similarly, O.P. No. 1 in the Court below, i.e., the present appellant, examined six witnesses and exhibited two documents to substantiate his stand.