LAND ACQUISITION Vs. PARBATI PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Land Acquisition Officer -cum -Collector, Kalahandi has preferred this Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) as per award passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nawapara in reference under Section 18 of the Act registered as M.J.C. No. 63 of 1992.

(2.) THERE is no controversy on the fact that Ac. 1.22 decimals of land of the respondents was acquired under Notification No. 58070 dated 7.9.1988 for the purpose of Upper Jonk Irrigation canal and that the said land has been described as agricultural land as Bahalkharipani and Bernakhari lands together with solatium and interest. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the compensation at Rs. 14,631.40 paise. Respondents accepted the same on protest and claimed for higher valuation at the rate of Rs. 2500/ - per dismissal on the ground that the acquired land is abating to densely populated locality of Rajpur -Nawapara which is a part of growing township of Sub -Divisional Headquarters of Nawapara and soon after acquisition of the land, it became the district headquarters of Nawapara district. In course of the enquiry, on the applications of the respondents, a Pleader Commissioner was deputed and the report of the Pleader Commissioner dated 3.4.1993 has been marked as Ext. 3. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions on the valuation of the property. The claimant -respondent relied on the evidence of the claimant as P.W.1 and one Bishnuram Suraj, P.W.2 and also relied on a Registered Sale Deed executed by him besides the Pleader Commissioner's report and a xerox copy of the judgment as Exts. 1, 3 and 2 respectively and also the sketch map as Ext. 4. The appellant examined the Land Acquisition Officer as opp. party witness No. 1 and relied on the working sheet, Ext. B, besides reference petition Ext. A. - -

(3.) LEARNED Government counsel argued that the determination of valuation by the learned Subordinate Judge is exorbitantly on the higher side and in that respect, version of the claimant was treated as gospel truth without assessing and analyzing the evidence of opp. party witness No. 1. Accordingly, he argues to set aside the impugned award and to confirm award of the Collector under Section 11 of the Act. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the claimant -respondent argues in support of the grounds advanced in the cross -objection and prays to enhance the valuation @ Rs. 3,000/ - per decimal for the Ac. 0.93 decimals and also proportionately enhance the valuation of Ac. 0.07 decimals, vide Plot No. 274/674.