LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. TARINI CHARAN PATNAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The quantum of compensation awarded by Mr. K.M. Subudhi, the learned Subordinate Judge, Berhampur, for acquisition of land belonging to the three respondents on a reference being made to him under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act, for short) is under challenge by the State of Orissa. The total area of land acquired is 14 cents with trees standing thereon. The market value of the land was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs. 2,000/- per acre, while according to the claimant-respondents, the land ought to have been valued at Rs. 50,000/-per acre. In respect of trees standing on the land, the case of the respondents was that from the trees alone, the income was about Rs. 7,000/- per year, but the compensation towards the trees was fixed at Rs. 7,245.35 paise by the Land Acquisition Officer which was grossly inadequate. One of the claimants, namely, Sadhu Charan Patnaik, spoke for himself and the other claimants in his deposition recorded by the learned Subordinate Judge and on behalf of the State, one witness, namely, P. Jaya Rao, a Lower Division Clerk in the Collectorate, was examined.

(2.) On a consideration of the materials placed before him, the learned Subordinate Judge found that the land ought to have been valued at least at Rs. 10,000/-per acre because it was a garden land and was nearer to the road and an industry. This finding recorded by the learned Subordinate Judge has not been assailed by the learned Advocate-General. It has, however, been contended on behalf of the State that the trees had properly been valued by the Land Acquisition Officer and in the absence of clear and cogent evidence in support of the claim put forward by the respondents, the learned, Subordinate Judge completely went wrong in awarding a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation in respect, of the trees. Mr. S. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the respondents, has, however, submitted that on the evidence on record, the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge with regard to the valuation of the trees cannot be said to be unfounded and the learned, Subordinate Judge has correctly assessed the amount of compensation payable for the loss of the trees.

(3.) As has been laid down by the Supreme Court in AIR 1967 SC 465 (Raghubans Narain Singh v. Uttar Pradesh Government), the market value on the basis of which compensation is payable under Section 23 of the Act means the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for a property having due regard to its existing condition, with all its existing advantages, and its potential possibilities when laid out in its most advantageous manner, excluding any advantages due to the carrying out of the scheme for the purposes for which the property is compulsorily acquired. In AIR 1968 SC 1481 State of Gujarat v. Vakhatsinghji Vajesinghji Vaghela, the Supreme Court observed (at p. 1487):