NARENDRA KUMAR JENA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by Learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar in Land Acquisition Misc. Case No. 211 of 1988 answering a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') involving Ac.0.705 decimals of land belonging to the Appellants and proforma -Respondents.

(2.) LAND measuring Ac.0.705 decimals in Khata No. 158 Plot Nos. 880 and 883/1627 in Mouza Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar was acquired by the State Government for sewerage treatment plant vide notification dated 2.4.1987 Under Section 4(1) the Act and possession of that land was also taken by the State Government. The Land Acquisition Collector, Puri determined the market value of the land @ Rs. 2 lakhs per acre, but the Appellants and proforma -Respondents filed application for a reference u/s. 18 of the Act and on such application the matter was referred to the Learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar, who registered the reference as L.A. Misc. Case No. 211 of 1988, conducted an enquiry by taking oral and documentary evidence of the parties and determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 3 lakhs per acre. Not being satisfied with such determination, the Appellants have filed this appeal claiming inter alia that the market value of the acquired land should be fixed at Rs. 6 lakhs per acre.

(3.) CONCLUSION that identical lands were sold @ Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 7 lakhs during the relevant year, it did not assign any reason as to why and how the value of the land in question was determined @ Rs. 3 lakhs per acre only. 2.(Sic) Mr. Sangram Das, Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 - State while supporting trie impugned order submitted that the notice Ext. I did not reveal that amount of compensation noted was paid to the noticee, the unregistered agreement did not reveal that the land noted therein was actually sold, the certified copy of the sale deed, Ext. 3, was not proved by the vendor, vendee or any attesting witness and, therefore, Learned referral Court had every reason not to rely on those documents. He submitted that the oral and documentary evidence produced by the Appellants not being reliable or helpful, Learned referral Court had to rely on the sales statistics supplied by the Land Acquisition Officer. He indicated that because the statistics related to small pieces of lands and the acquired land of the Appellants and proforma -Respondents was a big one, the referral Court had to adopt a moderate rate applying commonsense, which is permissible under law. 3.(Sic) Admittedly the acquired lands are situated near Oberoi Hotel in Nayapalli Mouza and they were acquired by the State for sewerage treatment plant. Basing on the sales statistics prevalent in the year 1986 -87 the Land Acquisition Collector, Puri determined the market price of the acquired land @ Rs. 2 lakhs per acre. The Appellants relied on Ext. 1, which is a notice issued by L.A.O. to one Karunakar Majhi and others to accept the compensation amount. Ext. 2 is an unregistered agreement and Ext. 3 is a certified copy of a registered sale deed. Learned referral Court rejected Ext. 1 as the persons concerned werp not examined. It rejected Ext. 2, because there was no evidence to show that the land was actually sold. Ext. 3 was rejected because it was a certified copy and the vendor, vendee or attesting witnesses did not come forward to prove the document. Ext. 2 is an unregistered document and when no one connected with it came forward to prove the document, rejection of the same was justified.