STATE OF ORISSA Vs. DWARIKANATH GARNAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal is directed against the order dated 8.12.1995 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Deogarh, in Land Acquisition Misc. Case No. 8 of 1995.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order mentioned above, the State of Orissa through the Collector, Sambalpur, has preferred this first appeal. The claimants are the respondents. The facts, in brief, of the case are that the Government acquired Ac. 17.20 decimals of land under Holding Nos. 41, 43, 46 and 09 of village Nanei in the district of Sambalpur, which belonged to the claimant -respondents, by Notification No. 83370 dated 23.11.1979 published in E.O.G. No. 2365 dated 12.12.1979 for the purpose of construction of Rengali Multipurpose Project. The Land Acquisition Officer, Bengali Irrigation Project, Sambalpur, awarded compensation of Rs. 72,000/ - towards the cost of the above holdings and for the trees standing therein including the tanks, wells and agricultural lands. The respondent -claimant's case is that there were Gharabaris, trees, tanks and wells on the Patita lands and agricultural lands of potentiality on the acquired holdings. They claim compensation of Rs. 15,000/ - per acre on the market value. Since the award of compensation of Rs. 72,000/ - for the acquired holdings is very low, they received the amount on protest. The Land Acquisition Officer, therefore, referred the matter under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) -cum -Land Acquisition Tribunal, Deogarh, for adjudication.

(3.) DURING hearing of the appeal, Mrs. C. Kasturi, learned Additional Standing Counsel, argued 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. She also argued that the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record on its proper perspective and she further submits that the judgment of the learned Civil Judge out to be set aside on the above grounds. Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the claimant -respondents, on the other hand submits that the Court below has rightly passed the order after considering the evidence of both parties relating to the market value and the potentiality of the holdings in question. Therefore, there is no illegality committed by the learned trial Judge.