ZONE OFFICER U I P Vs. LAXMINARAYAN PRAHARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 27.9.1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Dharamgarh, in M.J.C. No. 22 of 1995.

(2.) THE case of the appellant is that the Government acquired Ac. 0.85 decimals of land under Khata No. 70/9, Plot No. 708 of village Mutualguda in the district of Kalahandi which belonged to the claimant -respondent by Notification published in E.O.O.G. No. 304 dated 19.3.91 and subsequent notification published in E.O.O.G. No. 283 dated 28.2.92, for the purpose of construction of the Sub -Minor for Upper Indravati Project. The Land Acquisition Officer, Kusumkhunti, in the district of Kalahandi, awarded compensation of a sum of Rs. 18,804/ - towards cost of the land which the claimant received on protest. The respondent -claimant claims that there was a pond and a pucca boundary wall around it. He was doing pisciculture in the said pond and was earning Rs. 20,000/ - per annum from said pisciculture and, besides this, the claimant was also earning Rs. 50,000/ - per annum from cultivation of sugar -cane and vegetables in the said land. The respondent -claimant avers that he had a desire to have an industrial unit on the acquired land for establishing his highly educated son, but because of acquisition of the land by the Government, all his hope shattered. He claims that the award amount of Rs. 18,804/ -given by the Land Acquisition Officer is very low and he received the same on protest for which the reference was made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

(3.) DURING the hearing of the appeal, Mr. Raut, learned Additional Standing Counsel, argues that the Court below has failed to appreciate the scope and ambit of Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act for determination of the market value of the compound wall and the pond. His further contention is that, the learned Civil Judge has erroneously relied upon Exts. 1 and 2, the estimates prepared by the local Engineer in respect of the pond and the compound wall respectively. He, however, also does not dispute the valuation of the land in question. It is rather contended that the learned Civil Judge should have accepted Exts, C and C/1, the estimate prepared by the Government Engineer and his signature therein. The contention of Mr. Kanungo, learned counsel for the claimant -respondent, on the other hand, is that the Court below has rightly passed the order after considering the evidence of both parties relating to the market value and potentiality of the land in question, the compound wall and the pond. Therefore, there is no illegality committed by the trial Court in determining this compensation amount.