STATE OF ORISSA Vs. RATIWAN RAI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal under Sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Collector, Kalahandi has challenged the compensation quantified by the learned Subordinate Judge, Navapura in a reference under Sec. 18 of the Act.

(2.) A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice: The State of Orissa acquired lands of various persons for the construction of Upper Jonk Irrigation Project, through the Land Acquisition Officer, Kalahandi. One Bishnu Rout (hereinafter referred to as 'the original owner') was one such person. He raised dispute as regards the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Accordingly, a reference was made under Sec. 18 of the Act to the concerned Civil Court, the Subordinate Judge. The main dispute related to the valuation of the acquired land and the house standing thereon. Learned Subordinate Judge fixed the value of the land at Rs.2,38,040.00 and that of the house at Rs. 1,34,800.00, against corresponding figures of Rs.78,293.93 and Rs.76,275.00 fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. He preferred to adopt the multiplier method as no contemporaneous statistics relating to comparable case was brought on record by any of the parties. According to him, the total annual yield of paddy was 163.05 quintals and after deducting 50% for expenses and taking the rate per quintal to be Rs.130.00, the value of the lands acquired elactable to paddy was fixed at Rupees 1,70,040.00. The total annual yield of wheat was fixed at 55 quintals and deducting 50% for cultivation expenses and applying rate of Rs.150.00 the value of annual yield was fixed at Rs.4125.00. A sum of Rs.68,000.00 was added for the wheat, claimed to have been grown. He preferred to accept the evidence of P.W.3, an Engineer, who had estimated the value of the house at Rs. 1,34,800.00 as against the valuation of Rs.76,275.00 fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. It was observed that no foundation could be laid by the Land Acquisition Officer to support the valuation made. In addition to the value of the land and the house the land owner was held to be entitled to the statutory entitlements. On account of the death of the aforesaid Bishau Rout during the pendency of the reference, his legal representatives were impleaded as parties in the proceeding before the learned Subordinate Judge. The valuation of the land and the building, as aforesaid, is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel for the State submitted that the learned Subordinate Judge has erroneously adopted multiplier of 16 to assess valuation of land. According to him, the multiplier would be much less. Additionally, it is submitted that there was no material to substantiate the plea relating to growing of wheat in the land. With reference to the evidence of P.W.1, the land owner it is stated that he has not been able to say even the particulars and the details of the land on which the wheat was allegedly grown. The Land Acquisition Officer was examined as opposite party no.1. He has categorically stated that no evidence was forthcoming in the inquiry made by the concerned authority about growing of wheat or other Rabi crops in the acquired land. No cross-examination on this aspect by the land owner was made. His evidence was not appropriately considered. So far as the value of the house is concerned, it is stated that P.W.1 has himself admitted that the walls were mud, and the rates adopted by P.W.3 for the purpose of valuation are on the higher side.