STATE OF ORISSA Vs. ACHUYTANANDA SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal has been preferred by the State-Appellant, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dtd. 3/7/2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Ref. No.120 of 2003, vide which the Court below allowed the application of the present Respondents for enhancement of compensation and ordered that the Respondents are jointly entitled to compensation of Rs.43,000.00 for the land @ Rs.20,000.00 per acre and Rs.64,700.00 for various kinds of trees over the land measuring Ac. 2.15 decimals along with all statutory benefits in terms of Sec. 23(1-A), 23 (2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, shortly 'the Act, 1894'.

(2.) The brief facts, which led to filing of this Appeal are that an area of Ac.2.15 decimals of agricultural land appertaining to 14 plots under Khata No.8, situated in village Talabahali under Barkote Police Station in the district of Deogarh belonging to the present Respondents was acquired by the State Government vide Notification dtd. 27/8/1983 in terms of Sec. 4(1) of the Act, 1894 followed by the declaration dtd. 26/3/1984 for construction of Rengali Dam Project for which an enquiry under Sec. 11 of the Act, 1894 was conducted.

(3.) This Appeal has been preferred basically on the ground that the Court below ought to have examined the validity of the award determined by the Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O.) within the parameters and mandatory guidelines stipulated under Sec. 23 and 24 of the Act, 1894 and while passing the impugned judgment, the Court below acted in excess of its jurisdiction and fixed the market value of the acquired land exorbitantly on the basis of an un-contemporaneous earlier award passed in the case of State of Orissa-Vrs.-Nishakar Pradhan, reported in 2000 (II) OLR 571 as well as resorting to unreasonable inference in assessing the compensation amount for the trees and land, which are against the weight of evidence on record. A further ground has been taken in the Appeal that there is no clinching piece of evidence on record from which the Court below could be in a position to compare the nature, situation, advantages and potentiality of the acquired land with the lands covered under the earlier award passed in the case of Nishakar Pradhan (supra). The Respondents (Claimants before the Court below) also failed to establish the factum of similarity of the acquired land vis-"-vis the lands covered in the case of Nishakar Pradhan (supra), by adducing any cogent documentary evidence to the said effect. Still the Court below, relying on the judgment of Nishakar Pradhan (supra), enhanced the compensation amount.