L. A. ZONE OFFICER, TALCHER Vs. KULAMANI SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Land Acquisition Zone Against order of G.C. Tripathy, Subordinate Judge, Angul, D/- 5-8-1989. E W /E W /O 138/2005N R K-BSS/R AC/829 8/2005 Officer, Talcher Sambalpur Rail Link has filed this appeal under Sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') challenging to the award passed on 5-8-1989 by the Subordinate Judge (presently Civil Judge, Senior Division), Angul, in L.A. Misc, Case No. 49 of 1988.

(2.) The following facts are not in dispute, that an area of Ac. 0.36 decimals of land was acquired from the possession of the respondent as per Declaration No. 71272, dated 02.12.1985 published in the Orissa Gazette No. 1691 dated 20.12.1985, for the purpose of Talcher-Sambalpur Rail Link Project, that the appellant assessed the value of the land at Rs. 5,760.00 (five thousand seven hundred sixty), i.e., @ Rs. 16,000.00 (rupees sixteen thousand) per acre and along with the solatium and interest he passed an award under Sec. 11 of the Act for a sum of Rs. 7698.24 paise (rupees seven thousand six hundred ninety-eight and paise twenty four), and that respondent received the same on protest and claimed for higher compensation @ Rs. 3,000.00 (rupees three thousand) per gunth, i.e., @ Rs. 75,000.00 (rupees seventy five thousand) per acre and filed his protest petition and the same was forwarded to the Civil Court under Sec. 18 of the Act.

(3.) On receipt of the reference, learned Subordinate Judge undertook the enquiry. In that process respondent examined two witnesses including himself as P. W.1 and relied on no documentary evidence whatsoever. Appellant did not adduce any oral evidence but tendered in evidence objection petition of the respondent and the assessment report (i.e., valuation report), which were respectively marked Exts. A and B. On assessment of such evidence on record learned Subordinate Judge did not find any evidence to determine the actual market price of the acquired land on the basis of any sale statistics. Respondent claimed compensation by adhering to capitalisation means and the Court below adhered to that. In assessing the evidence on record and making analysis of the same learned Subordinate Judge recorded the finding that the net income per acre was at Rs. 2,500.00 (rupees two thousand five hundred) per annum. He applied the 20 multiplier and determined the market price of the acquired land at Rs. 50,000.00 (rupees fifty thousand) per acre. Accordingly he awarded the compensation of Rs. 18,000.00 (rupees eighteen thousand) for the acquired land besides the solatium, additional compensations and interest, etc. in accordance with law, Respondent did not file any separate appeal or cross-objection challenging to the aforesaid mode and quantum of compensation granted by the Court below. It is the appellant who has challenged the award of various grounds.