BULI BASTIA Vs. DULEI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, 'the Act') has been filed by the claimants as against the award passed by the Sub ordinate Judge, Second Court, Cuttack on 29.9.1992 in L.A. Misc. Case No. 5 of 1986. The other persons who are initially assessed to the compensation are Respondent Nos. 1 to 9 (being Opp. Party Nos. 1 series and 2 to 6 in the Court below) and the L.A. Collector, Guttack is Respondent No. 10 (being Opp. Party No. 7 in the Court below).

(2.) AC .0.40 decimals of land from Plot No. 717 under Khata No. 306 of village Brahman Khanda under Salipur Police Station was acquired for extension of minor irrigation canal up to village Sukpaika. The land was acquired on 23.4,1968 and possession was taken on 7.1.1969. Respondent No. 10 assessed the compensation and passed the award treating the category of the land to be 'Patita'. In that award under Section 11 of the Act, Respondent No. 10 assessed the value of the land at Rs. 200/ (rupees two hundred), value of the trees at Rs. 30/ (rupees thirty) and additional compensation at Rs. 34.50/ (rupees thirty four and paise fifty). Accordingly he granted a total compensation of Rs. 264.50/ (rupees two hundred sixty four and paise fifty). Respondent No. 10 awarded that compensation in favour of Opp. Party Nos. 1 to 6 (who, along with the L.Rs. of some of the deceased opp. parties, are now Respondent Nos. 1 to 9). The claimant filed a protest petition and raised its objection to the determination of the compensation in favour of the said opp. party members and also on the amount at which the value was assessed. She claimed that she had purchased Ac.0.33 decimals of land from the original owner as back as in the year 1944 and Ac.0.27 decimals out of the acquired Ac.0.40 decimals are part of that purchased land. Accordingly she claimed for compensation over that Ac.0.27 decimals of acquired land. She did not claim the compensation for the remaining Ac.0.13 decimals out of Ac.0.40 decimals of acquired land. Her further claim is that the acquired land was 'Amba Bagayat', i.e., mango tope and because of the aforesaid acquisition and digging of canal, she has sustained loss of 30 mango trees. She claimed compensation @ Rs. 20,000/ (rupees twenty thousand) per acre for the land which she lost by virtue of that acquisition and @ Rs. 500/ (rupees five hundred) for each of the trees which she lost because of the acquisition. The above noted opposite party members in spite of notice did not contest to her claim. Be that as it may, Respondent No. 10 made a reference under Section 18 of the Act for determination of the claim of the petitioner and apportionment of compensation.

(3.) AFTER undertaking an enquiry on 12.4.1990 Learned Sub ordinate Judge passed the award determining the market price of the acquired land @ Rs. 20,000/ {rupees twenty thousand) per acre and the value of each mango tree at Rs. 400/ (rupees four hundred). He granted the solatimum @ 30% and accordingly passed the impugned award. Respondent No. 10 challenged that award in First Appeal No. 316 of 1990. On 21.4.1992 this Court disposed of that appeal by setting aside the impugned award and remanding the case for fresh disposal after providing opportunity of adducing evidence to each of the parties for determination of the actual value and the quantum of compensation on the basis of the market price. After receipt of the case on remand, learned Sub ordinate Judge again provided opportunity of hearing to the parties. In that process P.W. No. 1 who had been examined previously, was further examined and Ext. 4 and sale deeds marked Ext. Y/1 for identification were accepted on record. Respondent No. 10 at that stage, did not adduce any further evidence.