LAWS(ORI)-2007-11-3

STATE OF ORISSA Vs. KARUNAKAR SAHU

Decided On November 01, 2007
STATE OF ORISSA Appellant
V/S
Karunakar Sahu Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent -claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.

(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village -Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matteer came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh.

(3.) MR . Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 106. He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1A) of the amended Act.