GOURI SHANKAR KAUR Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, 'the Act') dt. January 23, 1964, 453.25 acres of land of village Kalamati in the district of Sambalpur including 26.37 acres of land belonging to the claimants were acquired for having a State Livestock Breeding Farm. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation amount for the land at Rs. 7,056.19 paise and Rs. 26.78 paise for six trees standing thereon, totalling an amount of Rs. 7,118.97(?) paise. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants made higher claims for which the Collector made a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The claimants wanted compensation to be paid at an average rate of Rs. 10.000/- per acre for 20.26 acres of land and at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per acre for remaining 6.11 acres of land on which a pucca house had been constructed. For the house, twenty trees, a well and two Mundas on the acquired land, the petitioners claimed compensation of Rupees 25,000/-, Rs. 2,000/-, Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- respectively. Besides, 30 per cent of the value had been claimed towards the potential value of the land which was said to be rapidly developing to be an industrial area and was very close to the Hirakud Dam, Chiplima Subsidiary Dam, Burla town, the Hirakud Railway Station, the Bombay-Calcutta National Highway and the Sambalpur University. In addition, interest at the rate of 6 per cent and 15 per cent towards additional compensation for compulsory acquisition was also claimed. According to the State Government, the claims made were highly imaginary and compensation had rightly been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer keeping in mind the market value then prevalent in the area. At the hearing before the learned Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur, both the sides led oral and documentary evidence. As regards the claim of compensation for the building, well and two Mundas, the learned Subordinate Judge held that no reference had been made by the Collector and therefore, no claim could be made in respect of these items. The learned Subordinate Judge did not place reliance on the sale deeds put in evidence by both the sides for the reasons recorded in the award, discarded the evidence from the side of the claimants that improvements had been made on the land as per Ext. 15, an agreement and Ext. 16, an account of expenditure, which documents were more than thirty years old and relying on some awards passed by the court in respect of lands in the same locality, the learned Judge fixed the amount of compensation as noted above.

(2.) The claimants, who are the appellants in First Appeal No. 134 of 1973, have challenged the award on the grounds that the compensation fixed for the acquisition of the land is too low and that the learned Subordinate Judge ought to have relied on the accounts (Ext. 16) produced by them in support of their claim that vast improvements had been made thereon. It has also been contended by Mr. Sinha that the learned Subordinate Judge went wrong in discarding the oral and documentary evidence on behalf of the claimants and wrongly held that the reference did not cover the building, the well and the two Mimdas. The State is in appeal against the award in First Appeal No. 150 of 1973 and the learned Advocate-General has submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned Subordinate Judge is on the higher side. He has, however, fairly submitted that the learned Subordinate Judge was not correct in holding that' the reference did not cover the three items referred to above. As has been submitted at the Bar by the learned counsel for both the sides, the matter has to be remitted to the learned Subordinate Judge for valuation of the house, the well and the Mundas. To this extent, therefore, the appeal preferred by the claimants has to be allowed. It is next to be seen as to whether the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Subordinate Judge in respect of the land has been high as contended by the State or low as submitted on behalf of the claimants.

(3.) It has strenuously been urged by Mr. Sinha for the claimants that the varieties of lands have undergone vast changes by improvements made thereto and the learned Subordinate Judge went wrong in relying upon the entries made in the Hamid Settlement in 1936 with regard to the varieties of the lands. We see no force in this contention for the reasons to follow.