LAND ACQUISITION ZONE Vs. ATUA HARA ALIAS MUNDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 27.7.1995 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur, in Land Acquisition Misc. Case No. 132 of 1991.

(2.) THE Case of the appellant is that the Government has acquired Ac. 0.40 decimals of land under Khata No. 8 of village Kansar belonging to the respondent for construction of Talcher -Sambalpur Railway Link under Gazette notification No. 1012 dated 6.6.1988. The Land Acquisition Zone Officer, Talcher -Sambalpur Railway Link, awarded compensation of Rs. 2,628.82 paise for land, 30% of additional cost of Rs. 768.50 paise, and 12% for additional market value of Rs. 312.82 paise in total Rs. 3730.20 paise in favour of the respondent. The respondent received the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer -appellant, but considering the same to be inadequate, he filed an objection and the matter was referred to the Land Acquisition Tribunal under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court below, while adjudicating the aforesaid matter, enhanced compensation to Rs. 10,000/ -per acre. The case of the respondent is that the award amount was inadequate in comparison to the market value of the neighbouring villages. According to the respondent, the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is very low since the land value in his village as well as other villages is very high and the lands were assessed at the rate of Rs. 22,500/ - per acre. The respondent claimant claims Rs. 25,000/ - per acre as his lands are better than the other lands which were acquired in Land Acquisition Misc. Case No. 27 of 1990. The learned Civil judge (Sr. Divn.) after considering both the oral as well as the documentary evidence, by order dated 27.7.1995 held that the claimant respondent is entitled to higher compensation of Rs. 10,000/ - per acre with 30% solatium, 12% additional compensation of the said amount and 9% interest per annum from the date of taking possession till the final payment is made. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) further held that in case of failure to pay the compensation amount within one year, the amount shall carry 15% interest per annum.

(3.) THE contention of Mr. Raut, learned Additional standing Counsel, for determination of market value of the land in question is that the Land Acquisition Officer having determined the compensation amount considered all the relevant factors, the Court below should have accepted the same. Mr. Raut further contends that the Courtbelow has not considered the materials adduced by the parties in proper perespective and as such the award passed by the Court below is illegal and is liable to be set aside.