LAND ACQUISITION AND RESETTLEMENT OFFICER, UPPER KOLAB HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT, KORAPUT Vs. AMIYA KUMAR SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the judgment -debtor in Execution Case No. 66 of 1990 of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jeypore and the opposite party members are the decree -holders. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) while hearing to the objection raised by the petitioner to the executability of the amended execution petition has passed the impugned order on 20.3.1999. For the reasons indicated below, this Court finds the impugned order to be non -sustainable in the eye of law and the matter is required to be remanded for fresh consideration by the executing Court in accordance with law.

(2.) SO far as the fact is concerned, there is some factual inconsistency in certain events which has been noted in the impugned order as well as in the revision application. According to the fact noted in the impugned order certain land was acquired for construction of Dhanapur Branch Canal as per the Government Notification dated 20.11.1978 under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act). The date of the award under Section 11 of the Act of the Collector is not noted in the impugned order. It is noted therein that reference was made under Section 18 of the Act and learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) registering the same as M.J.C. No. 37 of 1980 and passed the award on 28.10.1982 whereas the date of such award has been noted as 15.10.1982 in paragraph 2 of the revision application. That award was challenged in the High Court in appeals preferred under Section 54 of the Act by both the parties having been registered as F.A. Nos. 35 and 43 of 1983. This Court dismissed both the appeals by affirming to the valuation determined by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division). As noted in the impugned order it was observed by this Court in the common judgment that "in the circumstances, we do not find justification for interference with the award given by the trial Court. It goes without saying that claimants are entitled to statutory benefits under the Act as admissible."

(3.) AS noted earlier since the matter is required to be remanded, therefore, the executing Court is to verify about the relevant dates from the concerned case record and to note the same correctly and accurately.