LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. SANATAN NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals arise out of and the same award passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in L.A. Misc. Case No. 12 of 1998 and, therefore, they are heard analogously and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) AC . 0.400 decs of land appertaining to plot No. 20/782/864 under Khata No. 220/27 of Mouza Majena belonging to the claimant Sanatan Nayak was acquired by the State Government for Elephant Sanctuary by Notification No. 516 dated 04.04.1987 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (in short the 'Act'). Learned Land Acquisition Officer, Puri awarded compensation to the claimant at the rate of Rs. 8,000/ - per acre. The claimant received that amount of compensation under protest and demanded reference of the matter to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act for determination of market value of the acquired land. That is how the matter came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bhubaneswar in the above noted L.A. Misc. Case. To substantiate the claim for higher compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/ - per acre, the claimant examined himself and another witness, namely, Surendra Kumar Sahu and produced notification dated 04.04.1987, certified copy of the sale deed dated 25.10.1986 and the reference letter of the L.A. Collector which were marked as Exts.1 to 3 respectively. The State -opposite party examined the Revenue Inspector only as O.P.W.1 but did not produce any document. On consideration of the above noted evidence, both oral and documentary, learned referral Court came to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land at the time of acquisition was Rs. 80,000/ - per acre, and directed payment of compensation accordingly along with statutory benefits provided under the Act. Not feeling happy with the said award, the Land Acquisition Officer, Puri filed F.A. No. 150 of 2001. The claimant was also not satisfied with the quantum of compensation and filed F.A. No. 34 of 2001.

(3.) MR . Sangram Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Land Acquisition Officer, Puri, on the other hand, argues that all lands located near Bhubaneswar do not fetch high value and, therefore, the enhancement of the award by 10 times was not proper. He indicates that the land of the claimant was acquired for the purpose of Elephant Sanctuary, which itself suggests that situation of the land was not close to human habitation and for that reason the market value of the land could not be assessed as homestead land. He, accordingly, prays for reduction of the rate of compensation.