MANU PUJHARI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INITIALLY there were three objectors. Dibakar Pujhari a brother of other objectors, died during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings. The disputed lands constitute 13. 09 acres and are described as Brahmattar Mafi (Niskar) Sir lands in village Berhampura in Mahadebpalli, P. S. in the district of Sambalpur. The objectors claim Rs. 43,460/- as compensation on the basis of 16 times of the net annual yield. The Land Acquisition Officer offered only Rs. 8265/9/ -. On 30-4-1983 the arbitrator held that the objectors failed to give any evidence as to what was the net annual yield. He accordingly awarded compensation of Rs. 8265/9/- as offered by the Land Acquisition Officer. In the body of the award, he, however, held that the disputed lands were transferable and objectors were entitled to compensation at 16 times of the net annual yield. He rejected the claim of the petitioners to get compensation at 16 times of the net annual yield on the basis of verma Settlement Report of 1932 on a finding that there was no crop cutting experiment performed in the Verma Settlement proceedings for determination of the net annual yield. His conclusion was based on the finding that there was no evidence on either side as to what was the net annual yield. The onus being on the petitioners, he awarded the compensation only to the extent admitted by the! land Acquisition Officer.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by this decision, the petitioners filed a review application on 8-51963 raising two contentions -- (i ). In similar cases arising out of Mahadebpalli P. S. , the Arbitrator himself directed the Land Acquisition Officer to determine the net yield and award compensation. The learned Arbitrator rejected this contention on the ground that the remand order in previous cases referred to areas governed by the Hamid Settlement in which there was crop cutting experiment; and (ii) Verma settlement Report was a piece of admissible evidence determining the net annual yield and the statement of the Arbitrator that there was no evidence on record is based on error of law apparent on the face of the record.

(3.) THE Arbitrator rejected the application for review on both the grounds. He held that his view of Verma Settlement Report was correct in law and that as there was no error of law apparent on the face of the record, he had no jurisdiction to review the award. Against this order passed on 3-8-63, the Civil Revision has been filed.