PADMALOCHAN PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ application challenges the legality of the orders passed by the authorities under the Orissa Land Reforms Act in Annexures -1, 8, 9 and 10.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that in a ceiling proceeding under the Act, 394.92. acres of land in villages Sitlenpali, Dakara, Raghunathpali and Basiapada were found to be surplus and the State Government took possession of the same on 15.2.1985. Sisal plants were grown on the lands located in the villages Sitlenpali and Dakara and in other lands, fruit bearing trees like Jamu, Barakoli, Bahiala, medicinal plants and bamboos had been grown. It is also the case of the petitioner that there was a house over plot No.2182 in village Basiapada. After taking possession of the said lands, a Draft Assessment Roll under Section 48 of the Act was prepared and the petitioner was offered a sum of Rs.3,99,010.55 as compensation and objections were invited. The Draft Assessment Roll is annexed to the writ application as Annexure -1. Since the Draft Assessment Roll did not contain the rates and basis of calculation, the petitioner filed an application 19.9.1989 before the opposite party No.2 for furnishing the details of calculation of compensation. The details having not been supplied by the opposite party No.2, Tahasildar, the petitioner filed objection on 10.12.1989 before the opposite party No.2. According to the petitioner, the compensation assessed towards land is too low and is not in accordance with law. The compensation assessed towards Sisal plants at Rs.1,63,022.50 is without any basis and without calculating the number of trees, their age, etc. The claim of the petitioner is that there were 2750 Sisal plants per acre and accordingly, he was entitled to compensation of Rs.2,66,21,804.25 only in respect of Sisal plants. It is also the case of the petitioner that the fruit bearing trees, bamboos and other plants have been wrongly assessed by the opposite party No.2 at Rs.2,05,050.05 whereas the actual price of the said trees would be Rs.25,29,315.50. The petitioner also claimed compensation of Rs.3,75,000/ - against fire wood that would have been available form the trees and Rs.1,87,875/ - towards branches of the trees, Rs.44,260/ - towards bamboos and Rs.1,00,000/ - towards loss of profit form the fruit bearing trees. The petitioner claimed a compensation amount of Rs.2,98,99,192.75 with interest apart form solatium at the rate of 30%. The details of calculation made by the petitioner is given in Annexure -2. According to the petitioner, after taking possession of the lands on 15.2.1985, no steps were taken by the Government officials to protect the Sisal plants and the trees in spite of the letter written by the petitioner, as a result of which, when the verification was made for assessment of valuable trees and plants after lapse of about two years, most of the Sisal plants were damaged and accordingly, the calculation made by the opposite party No.2 cannot be correct.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties 2, 3 and 4. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the land measuring 394.92 acres in the villages mentioned in the writ application vested in Government on 5.2.1983 by order of the Revenue Officer in a Civil Proceeding. The possession of the surplus ceiling lands in the aforesaid villages were taken over on 26.2.1983 and 25.1.1985 respectively. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that Sisal plants and other trees were grown on the lands in the above villages at the time of enumeration but there was no house over plot No.2182 as claimed by the petitioner. In paragraph -5 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the Draft Assessment Roll was sent to the petitioner on 6.9.1989 wherein the compensation was calculated and was intimated to the petitioner. In paragraph -7, it is stated that the possession of the surplus lands of villages Sitlenpali and Dakara were taken over on 25.1.1985 and enumeration work of the plants and trees were immediately started and process of enumeration was completed on 29.9.1985. In view of the above, there was no necessity of protecting the Sisal plants by posting of any officials for the purpose. After enumeration, it is stated that compensation was calculated at Rs.30,938/ - for the lands, Rs.1,63,022.50 for Sisal plants and Rs.2,050.05 for standing trees and no compensation was assessed for any house as claimed. In paragraph -9, it is stated that the compensation calculated towards Sisal plants was made correctly in consultation with the Soil Conservation Officer, Hirakud Division, Burla and Director of Soil Conservation Department, Bhubaneswar and the rates were assessed in accordance with the enumeration of Sisal plants in the aforesaid two villages on the basis of the report of the Amin. In respect of trees and other plants, it is stated in the counter affidavit that the assessment has been made correctly and the petitioner is not entitled to any further claim. At the time of hearing of the writ application, the learned counsel for the State referring to the report of the Soil Conservation Officer as well as judgments passed by the Courts below submitted that the assessment having made in terms of the report submitted by the Soil Conservation Officer as well as by the Amin, there is no reason to interfere with the orders and enhance the compensation already assessed by the Tahasildar -opp.party No.2.