STATE OF ORISSA Vs. BRAJA BANDHU ROUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Athagarh in L.A. Case No.4 of 1988 enhancing the amount of compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Collector, Cuttack in favour of the respondents.

(2.) The State Government, for the purpose of Jamunabandha M.I.P., acquired Ac.0.20 decimal of Sarada land in Mouza-Sudarsanpur belonging to respondents under the notification No. EOG. No.847 dated 19.5.1984 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, (in short, 'the Act') published in the extra ordinary Orissa gazette. The Land Acquisition Collector after making necessary enquiry awarded a compensation of Rs.3,379.60 for the said land, i.e., at the rate of Rs.11,900/- per acre. The claimant-respondents demanded compensation @ Rs.60,000/-per acre and prayed to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act and the matter was referred the Court Sub-ordinate Judge, Athagarh for determining the value of the acquired land. In the L.A. case, the claimant-respondents examined three witnesses and exhibited three sale deeds, which are marked as Exts.1, 2 and 3. The appellant examined one witness only and did not produce any documentary evidence. After considering the above noted oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sub-ordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the rate of acquired land would be Rs.30,000/- per acre and accordingly answered the reference with the observation that the claimants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre along with additional market value of 12% per annum from the date of notification till acquisition of the land and also solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value. The said order of learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Athagarh is under challenge in this appeal.

(3.) Mr. Sangram Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that the sale deeds, which were relied on by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge in fixing the market value of the acquired land are not contemporaneous documents as those documents are not of the year of acquisition of the land in question. He further submits that the claimants, who stood at par with the plaintiffs were supposed to establish their claims by producing clear and cogent evidence, but the evidence produced by them were far short of standard. He submits that the assessment and finding of learned Sub-ordinate Judge are imaginary and not based on the materials available on record.