MANTRIBAR NAIK Vs. LAND ACQUISITION ZONE OFFICER, ANGUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 11th March, 1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Angul in L.A. Misc. Case No. 85 of 1996 on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The essential fact of the case is that the State Government acquired Ac. 2.00 of land in Plot No. 23/2500 under Khata No. 542/183 of village Ranigoda Jungle belonging to Mantribar Naik and Pradyumna Kumar Naik, who are appellants in First Appeal No. 172 of 1997 and respondents in First Appeal No. 219 of 1997, (for short, the "claimants") for construction of Talcher-Sambalpur Rail Link. The Land Acquisition Officer after considering the relevant factors fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 26,000/- per acre. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants raised objection and the matter was referred to the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Angul under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for redetermination of the market value of the acquired land. Learned Civil Judge (SD), Angul after considering the oral and documentary evidence tendered by the claimants and the State in that reference Misc. Case fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre. The State has challenged the said order of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) in First Appeal No. 219/97 calling the enhancement as high, excessive and arbitrary. The claimants have also challenged the same order in F.A. No. 172 of 1997 alleging that determination of the market value of the acquired land is unreasonably low.

(3.) Reiterating the grounds of the appeal Mr. Mohanty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State submits that the award passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD), Angul is against the weight of evidence on record and contrary to the provisions of Sections 23 of the Act. According to him, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimants is in no way material for enhancement of the market value of the acquired land, but the learned Civil Judge without considering the evidence in true respective arbitrarily passed the award. Mr. B.S. Patnaik, learned counsel for the claimants, on the other hand, submits that discriminatory attitude was adopted by the learned Civil Judge while determining the market value of the acquired land. He submits that since compensation for the adjoining land was determined at Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre, the same market value should have been adopted for the acquired land belonging to the claimants.