PADMA CHARAN SAHU Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment dated 10.1.1992 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in First Appeal No. 290 of 1990 is assailed in this A.H.O.

(2.) BEREFT of unnecessary details, the short facts necessary for appreciating the inter se disputes among the parties are: - In consonance with a Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') published on 27.6.1988 in the Orissa Gazette (Extraordinary), Ac.0.250 decimals of land belonging to the appellant appertaining to Survey No. 239, Patta No. 77 in question situated in village Sana Kusasthali were acquired by the State for the purpose of constructing godowns of the Orissa Warehousing Corporation. The respondent Land Acquisition Officer offered a compensation at the rate of Rs. 25,000.00 per acre to the appellant for the acquired land. The appellant received the same with objection and filed an application under Section 18 of the Act which was referred to the then Subordinate Judge, Ganjarn, Berhampur and was registered as L.A. M.J.C. No. 160 of 1988. The trial Court, on consideration of the materials produced before it as also the evidence, both oral and documentary, determined the market value of the lands acquired at the rate of Rs. 1,25.000.00 per acre and awarded compensation accordingly. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Subordinate Judge enhancing the compensation the respondent preferred aforesaid First Appeal No. 290 of 1990 before this Court. This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties took the view that the evidence adduced in the case was not sufficient, inasmuch as the Court below had not taken into consideration the transactions made in near -about areas of the acquired land. This Court further observed that the compensation awarded in respect of the adjoining lands, acquired for the same purpose as in this case, i.e. construction of godowns of the Warehousing Corporation, would have thrown light for arriving at a just decision in determining the market value of the lands acquired in this case, more so because by passage of time value of land increases day by day in urban areas. On the basis of such observation this Court set aside the impugned judgment of the trial Court and remitted the matter back to the trial Court for disposal de novo.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent, at the other hand, submitted that the present respondent has filed a Review Petition before this Court for reviewing the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench and, as such, the said judgment may not be taken into consideration in this appeal.